Planning Scheme Review Report - City of Knox · 2016-08-04 · 5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Knox City...
169
KEANEY PLANNING Planning Scheme Review Report Knox Planning Scheme April 2015
Transcript of Planning Scheme Review Report - City of Knox · 2016-08-04 · 5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Knox City...
.
KEANEY PLANNING
Planning Scheme
Review Report
Knox Planning Scheme
April 2015
1
GTP Quality System
Project Manager: JK / JG Checked By: JG
Date issue: April 2015 Revision Number: -
The intellectual property contained in this document remains the property of Keaney Planning and Glossop Town Planning.
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of the Keaney Planning and Glossop Town Planning’s client. It is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Keaney Planning, Glossop Town Planning and its client. Keaney Planning and Glossop Town Planning accept no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
2
Table of contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5
1.1 PREVIOUS REVIEWS ..................................................................................................... 5
1.2 MAJOR STRATEGIC ISSUES .......................................................................................... 6
1.3 STRATEGIC CHANGES .................................................................................................. 8
1.4 ZONES/OVERLAYS ........................................................................................................ 9
1.5 CONSULTATION OUTCOMES ........................................................................................ 9
1.6 STRATEGIC GAPS ........................................................................................................ 11
1.7 REVIEW REPORT CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 11
1.8 REVIEW REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................... 12
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 17
2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ....................................................................................... 17
2.2 THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW .................................................................... 18
3. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 22
3.1 THE 2010 PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW ...................................................................... 22
3.2 RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME .................................... 26
3.3 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 27
4. REVIEW OF PANEL REPORTS AND VCAT DECISIONS ............................................... 29
4.1 VCAT DECISIONS ......................................................................................................... 29
4.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS ........................................................................... 36
5. STATE STRATEGIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 44
5.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................... 44
5.2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT .......................................................................... 45
5.3 AMENDMENT VC102 .................................................................................................... 46
5.4 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................... 47
5.5 NEW VPP ZONES ......................................................................................................... 47
5.6 PRACTICE NOTES ........................................................................................................ 49
5.7 PLAN MELBOURNE ...................................................................................................... 49
5.8 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK REVIEW ..................................................... 51
5.9 NATIVE VEGETATION .................................................................................................. 53
5.10 BUSHFIRE .................................................................................................................... 54
5.11 VICSMART .................................................................................................................... 55
5.12 REVIEW REPORT CONCLUSIONS ON STATE CONTEXT ............................................ 57
6. LOCAL STRATEGIC CONTEXT ...................................................................................... 58
6.1 KNOX CITY PLAN 2013-2017 ........................................................................................ 58
6.2 KNOX COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLBEING STRATEGY (2013-2017) .................... 59
6.3 KNOX VISION: OUR CITY, OUR FUTURE ..................................................................... 60
6.4 OTHER COUNCIL ADOPTED STRATEGIES ................................................................. 60
6.5 CURRENT STRATEGIC PROJECTS ............................................................................. 68
6.6 REVIEW REPORT CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LOCAL STRATEGIC
CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................... 70
3
7. PROGRAM OF CONTINUOUS REVIEW ......................................................................... 72
7.1 METHODS OF CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 72
7.2 PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION.................................................................................... 72
7.3 KNOX@50 – OUR CITY, OUR FUTURE ........................................................................ 73
7.4 CONSULTATION AS PART OF THIS REVIEW............................................................... 74
7.5 ADOPTED LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS (2010 – 2014) ........................ 76
7.6 STATE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS (2010 – 2014) ......................................... 76
8. MAJOR PLANNING ISSUES IN KNOX ............................................................................ 78
8.1 EXISTING MSS ISSUES ................................................................................................ 78
8.2 EMERGING ISSUES...................................................................................................... 79
9. CONSULTATIONS – PLANNING ISSUES ....................................................................... 81
9.1 ACTIVITY CENTRES AND EMPLOYMENT AREAS........................................................ 81
9.2 INDUSTRIAL AREAS ..................................................................................................... 82
9.3 RURAL AREAS ............................................................................................................. 83
9.4 THE KNOX URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 84
9.5 RED TAPE REDUCTION IN OVERLAY CONTROLS ...................................................... 85
9.6 STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ................................ 86
9.7 CONTENT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK .................................... 87
9.8 ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINES .............................................................................. 88
9.9 LIQUOR LICENSING ..................................................................................................... 89
9.10 FAST FOOD OUTLETS ................................................................................................. 89
9.11 NATIVE VEGETATION AND BIODIVERSITY ................................................................. 90
9.12 LANDSCAPING ............................................................................................................. 91
9.13 CULTURE AND HERITAGE ........................................................................................... 91
9.14 DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC SITES ....................................................................... 92
9.15 TRAFFIC AND PARKING ............................................................................................... 92
9.16 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 93
9.17 NOISE ........................................................................................................................... 94
9.18 AGED CARE ................................................................................................................. 94
9.19 INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................................................................... 95
9.20 REVERSE BUFFERS AROUND SITES WITH ADVERSE AMENITY ............................... 95
9.21 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, LAND, WATER AND PLANNING........................... 96
9.22 GAPS IN THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME ................................................................... 97
10. HOW THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME IMPLEMENTS STATE PLANNING POLICY ...... 98
10.1 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 98
10.2 KNOX IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ............ 98
11. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE KNOX LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
(LPPF) .................................................................................................................................... 100
11.1 THE ROLE OF THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT........................................ 100
11.2 CONTENT OF THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT ........................................ 100
11.3 CONTENT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES ...................................................... 106
11.4 RECOMMENDED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE ............... 111
11.5 OTHER COMMENTS - GAPS ...................................................................................... 113
11.6 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE LPPF .................................................................... 113
4
12. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ZONES AND SCHEDULES ........................................ 115
12.1 AUDIT OF ZONES AND SCHEDULES ......................................................................... 115
12.2 GENERAL COMMENTS .............................................................................................. 116
12.3 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ARISING FROM REVIEW AND CONSULTATIONS ................. 116
12.4 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE ZONES AND SCHEDULES................................... 121
13. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES ................................. 123
13.1 AUDIT OF OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES .................................................................. 123
13.2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ARISING FROM REVIEW AND CONSULTATIONS ................. 124
13.3 POSSIBLE NEW OVERLAYS ...................................................................................... 135
13.4 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES ............................ 135
14. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS .................................................... 137
14.1 AUDIT OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS AND OTHER SCHEDULES ............................ 137
14.2 AUDIT OF INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS ................................................................ 138
14.3 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS AND
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................... 139
15. FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM ................................................................. 140
16. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 145
16.1 REVIEW REPORT SUMMARY..................................................................................... 145
16.2 REVIEW REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 146
APPENDIX ONE – RECOMMENDATION RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS MATRIX ....................... 151
APPENDIX TWO: IMPORTANT LOCAL AMENDMENTS SINCE LAST REVIEW..................... 160
APPENDIX THREE: IMPORTANT STATE AMENDMENTS SINCE LAST REVIEW ................. 163
5
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Knox City Council is required to review the Knox Planning Scheme every four years.
Monitoring, auditing and reporting of the Planning Scheme is now a mandatory
requirement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
This Knox Planning Scheme Review (“the 2014 review”) has been prepared in
accordance with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)
Planning Practice Note: Review of Planning Schemes (February 2006). The 2014
Review provides Council with:
An overview of the performance of the Knox Planning Scheme;
An understanding of what State and local policy changes have occurred since the
last review; and
A program for future action.
This Review Report contains five key sections across several chapters, which address:
Strategic Context;
Review Consultation;
Planning Scheme Performance Audit;
Future Strategic Work Program; and
Conclusions and Recommendations.
1.1 PREVIOUS REVIEWS
The new format Knox Planning Scheme commenced on 25 November 1999 and has
been subject to planning scheme reviews in 2003 and 2010. The 2014 Review has
audited the recommendations from the 2010 Review and has found that Council has had
regard to these recommendations and has either resolved or has advanced most of the
recommendations raised in the report.
6
1.2 MAJOR STRATEGIC ISSUES
The major strategic planning issues in Knox as identified in the current MSS and local
policies are:
URBAN DESIGN:
Urban form;
Fire safe development for buildings; and
Ecologically sustainable design.
HOUSING:
Residential development;
Public and social housing; and
Neighbourhood character.
ENVIRONMENT:
Natural environment;
Dandenong Foothills;
Dandenong Creek Valley;
Creek corridors and waterways;
Cultural heritage;
Aboriginal cultural heritage; and
Sustainability.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Economic activity;
Industry/commerce precincts;
7
Activity centres; and
Non-residential uses in residential areas.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Providing and maintaining infrastructure;
Integrated transport;
Open space and recreation; and
Community health and wellbeing.
While all of these issues remain relevant, consultations and the planning scheme review
have found that there are a number of new or emerging land use and development
planning issues that are apparent and will require attention. These issues include:
Gaming;
Environmentally efficient building design;
Rural land use and development;
Industrial land capacity;
Development contributions plans;
Social impact assessment;
Liquor licensing;
Food and drink premises;
Vegetation net gain; and
Non-residential uses in residential zones.
While work on some of these issues has already commenced, these and other issues
should be a medium to high priority for ‘further strategic work’ during the next review
phase.
8
1.3 STRATEGIC CHANGES
The 2014 Review has analysed Council’s strategic performance and has noted some
significant shifts in planning policy by both the State Government and Council since the
last review in 2010. This Review has confirmed that important State and local strategic
priorities which have emerged since the last review include (but are not limited to):
STATE
New zones, including revised residential, commercial, industrial and rural zones;
Plan Melbourne, the Metropolitan Planning Strategy;
Bushfire management policy and controls;
Development contributions review;
Native vegetation reform;
VicSmart initiative; and
Review of the State Planning Policy Framework.
LOCAL
City Plan, incorporating the Council Plan (2013-2017) and Knox@50;
Community Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013-2017);
Knox Vision: Our City, Our Future (2013-2017);
Knox Housing Strategy (2015);
Knox Residential Design Guidelines (2015);
Sites of Biological Significance in Knox (2010);
Rowville Plan (2015); and
Ferntree Gully Village Structure Plan (2014).
This Review reflects on these changes, as they are likely to have significant ongoing and
long term implications for Council.
9
Since 2010 there have also been changes at the local level to key Council ‘governance’
documents, notably the Council Plan and Health and Wellbeing Plan. These changes
have reiterated the importance of bringing together the planning process for all of the
plans in line with Council election cycles. This change seeks to enhance linkages
between the Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan, the Council Plan and the
Planning Scheme.
1.4 ZONES/OVERLAYS
This Review undertook a complete audit of the existing zone and overlay ordinances
within the Knox Planning Scheme.1 This was a key aspect of the review, given that one
of its core foci was to examine opportunities for red tape reduction within the Scheme.
Less focus was provided on the existing residential zones, given that Council is seeking
to implement the full suite of reformed residential zones through Amendment C131,
which was adopted by Council on 27 January 2015.
It is apparent that most of the zones and their schedules within the Knox Planning
Scheme (with the exception of the residential zones) require some level of review and
further strategic work. Many of the changes to the zones need to be based on new
strategic work that should be undertaken as a priority, such as:
Review of rural areas;
Review of industrial land; and
A review of the commercial zones in light of the recent changes to the zones and
their schedules.
Consultations have revealed that most of the overlay schedules require revision
including possible exemptions, decision guidelines, map changes and the like, in order
to reduce red tape and improve the efficiency of the Scheme.
1.5 CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
This Review involved a targeted consultation program which actively engaged with
Council staff, Council advisory committees and government agencies. The Review also
drew on recent consultation as part of the Knox@50 program and Amendment C131 to
the Knox Planning Scheme (Housing Strategy).
1 This review did not audit the mapping boundaries for zones and overlays.
10
A number of key issues were raised as part of the consultation process. These can be
summarised relating to:
Activity Centres;
Employment Areas;
Industrial Areas;
Rural Areas;
The Knox Urban Design Framework;
Opportunities for red tape reduction;
Structure of the Local Planning Policy Framework;
Content of the Local Planning Policy Framework;
Electronic Gaming Machines;
Liquor Licensing;
Fast food outlets;
Native vegetation and landscaping;
Culture and heritage;
Development of strategic sites;
Traffic and parking;
Social impact assessments;
Integrated water management;
Noise; and
Aged care.
Other isolated issues were also raised in consultations and these are discussed in the
report.
11
1.6 STRATEGIC GAPS
Despite having an extensive further strategic work program spread throughout the MSS,
the analysis in this review has revealed that only some of this work has been completed,
while other aspects may no longer be relevant.
This Review identified the following important gaps within the Knox Planning Scheme:
The need for an Employment Strategy, which broadly encompasses the
development of activity centres, employment clusters and industrial areas;
The need for an Industrial Land Review (incorporated as part of the
Employment Strategy);
The need to implement the Integrated Transport Plan, including a Parking
Strategy, to provide greater direction on traffic, transport and car parking
priorities across the municipality;
The need to provide stronger guidance on the development of strategic
development sites;
The need to investigate options for development contributions plans; and
The need to incorporate new policy direction in the Knox Planning Scheme for
existing and emerging issues, such as gaming, liquor licensing, culture and
heritage and biodiversity and native vegetation removal.
1.7 REVIEW REPORT CONCLUSIONS
Knox City Council is required to review the Knox Planning Scheme every four years.
Monitoring, auditing and reporting of the Planning Scheme is now a mandatory
requirement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
This review has analysed Council’s strategic performance and has noted some
significant shifts in planning policy by both the State Government and Council since the
last review in 2010. This review has confirmed that new important State and local
strategic priorities have emerged since the last review. The review has also analysed
opportunities for red tape reduction within the Knox Planning Scheme.
This review has confirmed that the basis of the Knox Planning Scheme is fundamentally
sound and strategically justified. However, it is apparent that to remain contemporary,
12
Council will need to undertake strategic work to address gaps that have become
apparent since the last review. On this basis, this review has made recommendations
regarding the type of strategies and plans that need to be undertaken to explore the
identified land use and development planning gaps.
Equally, a wholesale review and rewrite of the Local Planning Policy Framework will
assist in improving the clarity and structure of this section of the Scheme. It is clear that it
has been subject to a number of incremental improvements and its lack of a constant
narrative is a major deficiency of the Scheme.
The importance of maintaining a contemporary planning scheme should not be
underestimated. The Knox Planning Scheme is an important tool in giving effect to
Council strategies such as the Knox Integrated Strategy and Council Plan where their
objectives and policies seek to influence land use and development within the City of
Knox.
In light of the significant amount of strategic work undertaken at a State and local level in
the inter-review period, Council risks its LPPF becoming obsolete and redundant in
some significant policy areas if a re-write of the local components of the Scheme is not
undertaken as a matter of priority. This would be a poor planning outcome and could
potentially reduce the effectiveness of the planning scheme as a tool for decision-makers
including Council, VCAT and Planning Panels Victoria.
1.8 REVIEW REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
There are 23 specific recommendations in this report relating to all aspects of the
Planning Scheme. Overall, there are two aspects of strategic planning work that need to
be advanced in order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the Knox Planning Scheme.
These are:
Maintenance and administration of the Planning Scheme, including red tape
reduction; and
Strategic policy development.
13
Recommendations arising from the Review of the Knox Planning Scheme are as follows:
PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW REPORT
That Council:
R1. Adopt the report as the review required pursuant to section 12B (1) of
the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
R2. Forward the report to the Minister for Planning as required by section
12B (5) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLANNING SCHEME
In terms of prioritising a work program for the administration and improvement of the
Knox Planning Scheme and undertaking strategic policy development, the following
specific recommendations are made:
R3. Rewrite and restructure the existing Local Planning Policy Framework.
This rewrite should review the format and structure of the MSS to improve its
clarity and remove repetition. It is also appropriate to implement and reference
all adopted strategic work (at Chapter 5.4) into the Knox Planning Scheme
and update existing and new reference documents as relevant. The rewrite is
also an important opportunity to implement strategic work that arises from this
review, such as the extension of social impact assessment guidelines for
strategic sites and other developments. This review should adopt a “first
principles” approach to the structure and content of the LPPF, to consider all
options for improvement and rationalisation. This rewrite could be undertaken
in conjunction with Recommendation R12.
The rewrite and restructure of the LPPF should also incorporate other
recommendations arising from this review, including:
- The implementation of key recommendations from the Integrated
Transport Plan;
- Expanding social impact assessment guidelines for strategic sites and
major developments and provide stronger overall guidance on future
development of strategic sites and other major developments;
- The implementation of key land use and development recommendations
14
from other Council strategies, as relevant; and,
- The implementation of key recommendations from other strategic work
arising from this Review, where timing allows.
R4. Review of the Dandenong Foothills planning controls to examine
opportunities for red tape reduction and to ensure consistency in permit
triggers and decision guidelines. Implement in conjunction with
Recommendation R3 where timing allows.
R5. Review of other Zone and Overlay Schedules in accordance with the
comments of this review report (at Chapters 13 and 14), to ensure that they
are achieving their intended purpose. Implement in conjunction with
Recommendation R3 where timing allows.
R6. Review and rewrite Schedules to the Particular and General Provisions in
accordance with this review report to ensure that they are achieving their
intended purpose. Implement in conjunction with Recommendation R3 where
timing allows.
R7. Development and Implementation of a Land for Employment Strategy
encompassing a broad review of current and future opportunities for the use of
current industrial and commercial land, along with an established activity
centre hierarchy with the role and vision for each centre.
R8. Review of Rural Areas to provide strategic guidance for land use and
development for land outside the urban growth boundary, particularly in light of
amendments to the suite of rural zones.
R9. Development and Implementation of the Knox Central Structure Plan to
provide updated strategic guidance for the City’s largest activity centre. It is
important that this implementation occurs prior to the expiry of interim controls
on 30 June 2016.
R10. Development and implementation of a Wantirna Health Precinct
Structure Plan and other strategic planning guidance, in collaboration with
other key stakeholders.
R11. Review of the Heritage Study, including a broader assessment of Aboriginal
cultural heritage.
15
R12. Development and implementation of policy to address existing gaps
within the Local Planning Policy Framework relating to Non-Residential
Uses in Residential Zones, Environmentally Sustainable Design, Biodiversity
and Native Vegetation, Gaming, Liquor Licensing and Advertising Signs.
Implementation could be undertaken in conjunction with Recommendation R3
where timing allows.
R13. Review and implementation of the Knox Urban Design Framework to
ensure that it continues to provide relevant guidance on urban design within
the public and private realm within the City, and is appropriately implemented
into the planning scheme.
R14. Review of Vegetation Protection Overlays (Schedules 1, 2 & 3), to ensure
they continue to effectively implement their objectives
R15. Investigation and development of Liveability Guidelines, and
implementation into the Planning Scheme as appropriate.
R16. Development and implementation of Development Contributions Plans
across the municipality, as appropriate.
R17. Implementation of the Upper Gully Structure Plan, which is currently
under development.
R18. Undertaking further strategic work identified in the Integrated Transport
Plan, including investigating options for a Parking Strategy, Green Travel
Plans and review of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
R19. Review of the Electronic Gaming Policy (2010) and investigation of options
to incorporate this strategic work into the Knox Planning Scheme.
R20. Development of a Licensed Premises Policy and Study to provide direction
for the appropriate assessment of licensed premises within the municipality
and investigate opportunities to incorporate into the Knox Planning Scheme as
appropriate.
R21. Development and implementation of a ‘Reverse Buffers’ Policy to address
interface issues between former landfills and quarry sites with sensitive uses.
R22. Review of the Boronia Activity Centre Structure Plan and associated
planning controls to ensure that they are achieving their intended purpose
16
and remain relevant to decision-making in this centre, particularly in response
to the implementation of the new commercial and residential zones and to
allow for a genuine assessment of the effectiveness of the Boronia-specific
and broader housing planning controls.
R23. Review of the Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan and associated
planning controls to ensure that they are achieving their intended purpose
and remain relevant to decision-making in this centre, particularly in response
to the new commercial, industrial and residential zones and other strategic
work completed or currently underway in the wider area.
A risk-benefit analysis of each of these recommendations is provided at Appendix One.
17
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This Planning Scheme Review Report has been prepared to provide an overview of the
performance of the Knox Planning Scheme since its last formal planning scheme review
report in 2010.
This report has been prepared in accordance with Practice Note PPN 32 – Review of
Planning Schemes (February 2006).
The Review Report provides the following:
A commentary and analysis of:
o The relevant State and local context affecting the development and
performance of the Knox Planning Scheme;
o Strategic work that currently guides the Knox Planning Scheme;
o Strategic work undertaken by Council in the inter-review period and
recommendations for its implementation;
o Relevant case law which considers issues relating to the Knox Planning
Scheme;
A review of the strategic performance of the Knox Planning Scheme and
assessment of how the key influences have affected the future direction the
Planning Scheme should take;
Recommendations relating to reducing red tape and opportunities to streamline
or achieve greater clarity in the local content of the Knox Planning Scheme;
Recommendations for future strategic planning priorities; and
An Implementation Plan, including prioritization of recommendations.
The findings of the report are set out across the following chapters.
18
2.2 THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW
Section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires Council to regularly
review its planning scheme. On the 25 September 2007 section 12B of the Planning
and Environment Act was changed to provide a timeframe in which a Planning Scheme
(and not only the MSS) must be reviewed. Section 12B(a) of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 now states that a planning authority must review its planning
scheme:
no later than one year after each date by which it is required to approve a Council
Plan under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989; or
within such longer period as is determined by the Minister.
The Council Plan was approved in June 2013 and the Planning Scheme Review
commenced in September 2014. On 29 August 2014, the Minister for Planning granted
an extension of time until 25 September 2015 for Council to complete its planning
scheme review, in light of recent and significant changes to State policy along with the
significant strategic work already underway by Council which needed to be finalized prior
to a review being undertaken.
Once finalised and adopted by Council, this Planning Scheme Review Report will
constitute the formal “Planning Scheme Review” of the Knox Planning Scheme as
required under Section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
The planning scheme review process has included consultation with Councillors,
agencies, Council Officers and key stakeholders as well as a detailed desktop review of
zones, overlays, policies, relevant reports and strategic documents, VCAT decisions and
Panel reports.
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
The scope of this Planning Scheme Review includes the following key elements:
Preparation of a ‘Stakeholder Engagement Strategy’ involving Council staff and
executives, Council Advisory Committees, Councillors and key stakeholders;
Undertaking a review of the local provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme, including
the Municipal Strategic Statement, Local Planning Policies and Schedules to Zones
and Overlays;
19
Undertaking a review of strategic planning work undertaken by Council in the inter-
review period;
Preparation of a Preliminary Findings Report; and
Preparation of a Planning Scheme Review Report on the findings of the review.
The review has been conducted having regard to the (then) Department of Planning and
Community Development’s Continuous Improvement Kit, February 2006, but it does not
include the auditing or review of planning files or Council processes (this will be
undertaken by Council as part of its internal review of Service Planning processes for
2016/17).
In addition, the Planning Scheme Review Report is also to provide commentary on:
Whether there are opportunities for reducing red tape (i.e. reducing the need for
planning permits and/or streamlining requirements for various uses/developments);
Identifying future strategic planning projects and planning scheme amendments
which will improve the performance, effectiveness and operation of the Knox
Planning Scheme; and
Advice and recommendations relating to the preferred format and structure on the
local content components of the Knox Planning Scheme in response to the outcomes
of the State Government’s State Planning Policy Framework Review and any
resulting combined ‘Planning Policy Framework’ structure.
PROJECT TEAM
This project was undertaken in a partnership between Glossop Town Planning, Keaney
Planning and Knox City Council. The project team included the following staff:
John Glossop (Director, Glossop Town Planning);
John Keaney (Director, Keaney Planning);
Matthew Gilbertson (Senior Planner, Glossop Town Planning);
Kim Rawlings (Manager, City Futures);
Paul Dickie (Manager, City Development);
20
Monique Reinehr (Coordinator, Strategic Planning);
Susan Thompson (Project Manager, Strategic Planning);
Spiros Manolakis (Senior Strategic Planner);
Greg Kent (Coordinator, Urban Planning);
Peter Steele (Coordinator, Urban Planning); and
Cliff Bostock (Senior Urban Planner).
REVIEW PROCESS
The Knox Planning Scheme Review commenced in September 2014, following the
appointment of independent planning consultants.
The review was undertaken having regard to the following key documents:
The Planning and Environment Act (1987);
DPCD Continuous Improvement Review Kit (February 2006);
DPCD Practice Note: Review of Planning Schemes (February 2006);
Information Sheet: State Planning Policy Framework Review (December 2009);
DPCD Practice Note (4): Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement (September
2010);
DPCD Practice Note (8): Writing a Local Planning Policy (September 2013); and
Information Sheet: Making Local Policy Stronger Information Package
(September 2010).
The key steps in this review process have included:
An inception meeting with Council on 23 September 2014;
A review of the local contents of the Knox Planning Scheme;
A review of VCAT and Panel decisions since the last review;
A ‘red tape reduction workshop’ with Council’s Statutory Planning Department on
21
16 October 2014;
A collaborative workshop with the Communications, Corporate Planning and
Community Development Departments on 16 October 2014;
A collaborative workshop with City Development staff on 24 October 2014;
A collaborative workshop with City Engineering, Drainage and Emergency
Management staff on 24 October 2014;
An Issues Briefing with Councillors on 11 November 2014;
An online community survey;
Invitations to comment on the review sent to relevant referral
authorities/government agencies;
A second ‘red tape reduction workshop’ on 13 November 2014;
One meeting with local residents on 21 November 2014;
Presentation of the Interim Review Report on 12 December 2014; and
One meeting with officers of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP) on 17 February 2015.
22
3. BACKGROUND
The Knox Planning Scheme commenced on 25 November 1999. At the time of the 2014
review, the local content of the Knox Planning Scheme comprises:
The Municipal Strategic Statement;
9 local policies;
18 zones, with 22 schedules in total; and
14 overlays, with 36 schedules in total.
A number of Planning Scheme Reviews and Planning Scheme Amendments have
influenced its development over that period.
A review of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), comprising the Municipal
Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs) was undertaken in 2003.
The implementation of this first review was subject to a long gestation period and was
not finally completed until July 2010. Notwithstanding this, significant incremental
changes occurred to the planning scheme throughout the inter-review period between
2003 and 2010, including the introduction of the Dandenong Foothills Policy and
controls, revised policy controls for the City’s Principal Activity Centre (Knox Central) and
a range of specific controls for the Scoresby-Rowville Employment Corridor.
Most recently, the Planning Scheme was last formally reviewed in 2010.
3.1 THE 2010 PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW
The 2010 Review of the Knox Planning Scheme was undertaken by Glossop Town
Planning, with the Review Report provided to Council in October 2010.
The report concluded that:
Overall, the Knox Planning Scheme delivered the ‘leafy green’ image sought by
Council’s corporate directions for land use and development.
The Knox Planning Scheme complied with State Planning Policy and contained
statutory guidance on many of the preferred land use and built form outcomes.
The greatest successes of the Knox Planning Scheme were the protection of the
Dandenong Foothills and the preparation of strategic work for growth within
23
activity centres.
The Knox Planning Scheme was seen as being challenging to navigate, with
repetition in the policy framework and complexity in the Schedules to the
Overlays.
There were significant gaps in the Knox Planning Scheme in relation to Bushfire
risk, Industry, land outside the Urban Growth Boundary, land within Special Use
Zones and land along the Eastlink corridor.
REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE 2010 REVIEW
The 2010 Planning Scheme Review provided 60 recommendations for improvement and
further strategic work, resulting in 30 combined initiatives. This section of the report
provides a ‘report card’ on the status of these combined initiativesand whether they have
been achieved.
Of the main recommendations, 6 have been completed, 10 are in progress, 13 have not
commenced and 1 has been abandoned due to changes in State planning policy
prohibiting the outcome sought.
Significantly, the Council has implemented the controls that give status to the Sites of
Biological Significance review through Amendment C49. This is the most significant
piece of strategic work recommended as part of the 2010 review that has been
incorporated into the Planning Scheme in the inter-review period.
Additionally, Council has completed a review of its Housing Policy and is seeking to
implement its findings, along with the suite of reformed residential zones as part of
Amendment C131. The Council received the Panel report for this Amendment in
November 2014. The Panel was generally supportive of the Council’s Housing Strategy
and the amendment. This is discussed in further detail later in this report.
It is clear that the Council has made significant progress on many of the
recommendations arising from the 2010 review, with the commencement or completion
of more than half of the recommendations. Notwithstanding this, there are still some
significant strategic planning projects that have not commenced. In some instances,
consultation undertaken as part of this review indicated that several of these
recommendations (such as the review of industrial land, the review of heritage
significance and a review of VPO2) were still viewed as necessary to address gaps in
strategic policy.
24
The following table provides an outline of the status of the 30 individual
recommendations of the 2010 Planning Scheme Review Report.
Item Strategy / Action / Initiative Status
1 Housing Policy Review Currently underway – Amendment C131. Adopted by Council in January 2015 and submitted to the Minister for approval.
2 Sites of Biological Significance Controls Completed – Amendment C49
3 Land outside the Urban Growth Boundary Not commenced
4 Knox Central Structure Plan / Activity Centre Zone Currently underway – development of permanent controls
5 Review of Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 2
Some work completed via various amendments
6 Industrial Land Review Not commenced
7 Development of Electronic Gaming Machines, Water Sensitive Urban Design and Stormwater Management Policy
Not commenced
8 Incorporation of Eastlink Land Use Study into the Planning Scheme
Not commenced
9 Review of Development Plan Overlay Schedules Currently underway – some work completed
10 Heritage Review Not commenced
11 Development of Dandenong Foothills Guidelines Not commenced
12 Review of Municipal Strategic Statement Currently underway, delayed by uncertainty surrounding future PPF structure
13 Review of Special Use Zones Not commenced
14 Industrial and Restricted Retail Sales Areas Design Policy
Not commenced
25
15 Review of Neighbourhood Character Policy Currently underway – Amendment C131
16 Review of Residential 3 Zone application Completed
17 Review of Business Zone floorspace caps Abandoned – change in State Policy (Amendment GC6)
18 Review of Non-Urban Zones Not commenced
19 Review of Comprehensive Development Zone Not commenced
20 Review of Public Use Zones Rezoning of anomalies/changes required to land in public ownership is addressed on an ongoing basis as part of fix-up amendments as required.
21 Review of Public Conservation and Resource Zone According to Council, rezoning of anomalies/changes required to land in public ownership is addressed on an ongoing basis as part of fix-up amendments as required.
22 Review of Significant Landscape Overlay Schedules and development of guidelines
Currently underway – Amendment C120 partly addresses this (awaiting approval by the Minister)
23 Review of Design and Development Overlays Currently underway – ongoing work
24 Review of Incorporated Plan Overlay Completed
25 Review of Land Subject to Inundation Overlays Not commenced
26 Review of Wildfire Management Overlay Completed
27 Review of Public Acquisition, Environmental Audit, Road Closure and Restructure Overlays
According to Council, review of anomalies/changes required to land is addressed on an ongoing basis as part of fix-up
26
amendments as required.
28 Review of Open Space Plan Completed
29 Planning for Bushfire – local controls Completed
30 Ferntree Gully Structure Plan Completed
3.2 RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE KNOX PLANNING
SCHEME
Since the 2010 review, there have been a total of 73 amendments to the Knox Planning
Scheme. Of these, 40 have been State amendments to the VPPs and all planning
schemes, while 33 were local amendments.
Significant amendments over this timeframe have included:
Amendment C54 – Implementation of the Bayswater Activity Centre Structure
Plan;
Amendment VC83 – Introduction of the Bushfire Management Overlay and
associated State policy on bushfire;
Amendment C62 – Implementation of the Boronia Structure Plan;
Amendment C122 – Introduction of interim height controls within the Ferntree
Gully Neighbourhood Centre;
Amendment C49 – Implementation of the Sites of Biological Significance in Knox;
Amendment VC100 – Introduction of reformed Commercial and Industrial Zones;
Amendment VC103 – Introduction of reformed Rural Zones;
Amendment VC105 – Implementation of reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation
and biodiversity provisions;
Amendment VC106 – Introduction of Plan Melbourne;
Amendment GC6 – Removal of all floor space restrictions in planning schemes
for land within activity centres, commercial centres and employment precincts;
Amendment VC116 – Introduction of the General Residential Zone;
27
Amendment C129 – Implementation of the Ferntree Gully Village Structure Plan;
Amendment VC114 – Introduction of the VicSmart planning assessment
provisions; and
Amendment C130 – Introduction of interim mandatory height controls for The
Basin, Upper Ferntree Gully and Alchester Village activity centres.
In addition to these amendments, there are also a number of other significant planning
scheme amendments that are awaiting Ministerial approval, including:
Amendment C74 – Rezoning of the Jenkins Orchard;
Amendment C120 – Review of SLO permit triggers;
Amendment C131 – Implementation of the Knox Housing Strategy 2015 and the
Rowville Plan 2015 and the introduction of the reformed residential zones;
Amendment C132 – Implementation of the Knox Private Hospital Master Plan;
Amendment C133 - Implementation of minor changes to provide clearer
guidance for development in the Boronia Activity Centre; and
Amendment C134 – General fix up amendment.
3.3 CONCLUSION
In a strategic sense, it is apparent that Council has undertaken a series of incremental
changes to the Knox Planning Scheme following both the 2003 and 2010 reviews. These
amendments have freshened the broad strategic direction of the MSS over time.
As with any scheme over time, some of the base data is now ‘stale’ and, more
importantly, there are emerging and unresolved issues for which further analysis is
required and for which clearer direction is needed.
In a structural sense, this review provides a significant opportunity to consider the future
approach to the local content within the Knox Planning Scheme. The KPS is a ‘content
heavy’ scheme, which takes a layered approach to policy across key areas including
housing, activity centres and economic development and the environment.
The need to incorporate strategic work that Council has either commissioned or
completed over the inter-review period, along with changes to the structure of the State
28
Planning Policy Framework will inevitably require a restructure of the existing MSS.
29
4. REVIEW OF PANEL REPORTS AND VCAT DECISIONS
An important part of any Planning Scheme Review is to analyse the outcomes of
planning permit decisions made by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal
(VCAT); and planning scheme amendment reports made by Planning Panel Victoria
(PPV). Council is conscious of the importance of the lessons that can be learned from
State Government review forums that have occurred during the planning scheme review
period.
4.1 VCAT DECISIONS
Council provided the authors of this report with an analysis of all VCAT cases before the
Tribunal in the inter-review period. We have undertaken an assessment of these cases.
The analysis that follows in this section draws out the key discussion on policy matters,
where they have relevance on the performance of the Knox Planning Scheme. While we
note that there are individual site-specific matters raised in each case, we conclude that
these aspects of the cases have no significant bearing on the performance of the Knox
Planning Scheme.
Since the last review of the Knox Planning Scheme, approximately 215 cases have been
heard before the Planning and Environment List at VCAT dealing with matters
determined by Council. These cases predominantly reviewed Council decisions on the
merits of planning permit applications, but also included some applications to extend the
life of planning permits and for declarations under Section 149 of the Act.
Upon review of merits proceedings where Council had determined to refuse or approve
an application, VCAT set aside (rejected) the Council decision in about 68% of all
applications for review in this class.
There were a total of 94 matters before VCAT which related to Council’s Refusal to
Grant a Planning Permit. Of these matters, the Tribunal set aside the Council’s decision
on 61 occasions (or in 65% of all instances).
A snapshot of some of the key issues to emerge from the decisions is as follows.
DEVELOPMENT AROUND ACTIVITY CENTRES
A key policy direction at Clause 22.10 of the LPPF is, in the absence of a structure plan,
to “favourably consider” medium density housing “within 400 metres easy walking
distance” of the City’s activity centres. Outside of these areas, the policy imperative for
medium density development is tempered with a recognition that infill housing in
30
dispersed locations needs to respect and complement the desired future character at
Clause 22.07 ‘Neighbourhood Character’ and respond to the Foothills Policy at Clause
22.01, where relevant.
Council relied on the remoteness of two sites in Central Avenue, Boronia from the
Boronia Activity Centre to refuse applications for medium density, which were later
reviewed by VCAT.
In Orcone Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2011] VCAT 1136, the Tribunal allowed the development
of nine dwellings on land at 37 Central Avenue, approximately 700 metres from the
Activity Centre. It concluded that:
The site is not within a preferred area for medium density housing Rather, it is
within a ‘dispersed’ residential location, reflecting the first of the Council’s
reasons for declining to support the proposal.
I am not however persuaded that this site is not an acceptable one from a
strategic or locational viewpoint.
The Tribunal went on to consider that a number of locational and policy attributes
favoured increased density in this location, including the presence of other medium
density development and the consideration that 700 metres was still ‘easy walking
distance’ to the activity centre. It concluded that the policy position to support medium
density development within 400 metres of an activity centre did not of itself mean an
unfavourable consideration of medium density development beyond the 400 metre
threshold.
This was consistent with VCAT’s view in Roynic v Knox CC [2010] VCAT 1720, which
addressed the same issue for another development at 42 Central Avenue, Boronia.
What these conclusions suggest is that the Council is misapplying or misunderstanding
the policy position. The policy states that medium density applications will be “favourably
considered” when within 400 metres of an activity centre. There is no accompanying
policy statement which specifically discourages medium density development beyond
that threshold. To some extent, the significant redrafting of housing and neighbourhood
character policy as part of Amendment C131 may assist in providing better definition of
anticipated built form outcomes in each of the City’s residential areas.
31
DENSITY CONTROLS IN THE DANDENONG FOOTHILLS
The Design and Development Overlay controls that affect the Dandenong Foothills each
contain a specified minimum subdivision area control. In practice, Council uses these
controls to control dwelling density, as well as lot size.
VCAT has been critical of Council’s consideration of the subdivision control in
development applications. The concern of VCAT is that the development applications do
not relate to subdivision and therefore the decision-maker cannot consider the future
subdivision potential of the land. While this appeared to be an isolated instance in the
inter-review period, this policy tension was also evident in other Tribunal cases heard
prior to the last planning scheme review.2
In Property Subdivision Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2013] VCAT 743, the Tribunal considered
the development of a second dwelling on a 990 square metre parcel of land, which was
subject to a 500 square metre minimum lot size. The Council submitted that the
application should be refused on the basis that the land would be unable to be
subdivided in the future. The Tribunal disagreed with Council’s assessment and
concluded that:
The fundamental concern with this proposal is that it would result in two dwellings
on a property that cannot be subdivided. This is because the mandatory
provisions of DDO2 do not allow subdivision involving lots of less than 500
square metres. As the review site is 990 square metres, it cannot be subdivided
into two, as Mr Radisich observed and accepted.
Subdivision is not proposed in this application.
Policies relate to the achievement of specific character and design outcomes,
with which the permit application fully complies, and there is an aim to limit infill
housing in the Scheme. However, there is no policy discouraging a second
dwelling in a circumstance such as the review site providing the necessary
character outcomes are met and the requirements and relevant design objectives
of the Overlays are also met.
Similar views have been adopted by the Tribunal in cases prior to the last planning
scheme review and anecdotal evidence from planning staff indicate that this is still an
2 See, for instance, Bicknel v Knox CC [2007] VCAT 1333, Derham v Knox CC [2008] VCAT 183, Oakhouse Investments Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2008] VCAT 649 and Burzgau v Knox CC [2009] VCAT 1571.
32
ongoing concern of Council.
What these conclusions suggest is that the policy position expressed in the Knox
Planning Scheme is inconsistent with Council expectations. If Council wishes to ensure
that second dwellings are strongly discouraged or even prohibited within the Foothills, it
appears that a different statutory response is required within the Design and
Development Overlay controls.
Amendment C131 proposes to introduce Schedule 1 to the Neighbourhood Residential
Zone to the Dandenong Foothills. The Schedule (as submitted to the Minister for
approval) includes a provision which limits the number of dwellings on a lot to ‘one’. This
response, if accepted by the Minister, will address this policy issue.
BORONIA ACTIVITY CENTRE
Two separate and distinct issues emerged in VCAT decisions regarding the Boronia
Activity Centre. The first concerned issues regarding the interpretation of undefined
language within the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 7; while the second
concerned the definition of the Activity Centre’s boundary along Bambury Street.
In relation to the first issue, the Tribunal repeatedly3 noted concern with the definition of
terms such as ‘outstanding architectural design’ within the overlay control. This is an
issue which was not mentioned in the Panel Report for Amendment C62, which
introduced the control. VCAT’s concern was noted in 43 Chandler Road Pty Ltd v Knox
CC [2012] VCAT 715, where it considered that such terms were subjective and difficult
to quantify in terms of evaluating design responses against the overlay.
In James W Sadler Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2012] VCAT 257, the Tribunal commented on the
subjectivity by stating that:
The term is subjective and somewhat unhelpful if it is not considered in the
context of the outcome envisaged by factors such as policy, the purpose of the
zone and the various objectives including those at Clause 55 and DDO7.
It would be inappropriate, for example, to include that a building of outstanding
architectural quality must only mean a building that makes a strong architectural
statement that sets it apart from others. This is particularly so given the
requirements of the planning scheme, including the policies within both the state
3 See, for instance, James W Sadler Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2012] VCAT 257, Tvarkouski v Knox CC [2012] VCAT 847, 43 Chandler Road Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2012] VCAT 715 and Peter Brown Architects Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2012] VCAT 1006.
33
and local section of the scheme, the purpose of the zone and the provisions of
Clause 55 which call for development that is respectful of the neighbourhood
character. It may be that a somewhat subdued architectural response is required
in response to the neighbourhood character context. Such a response may not,
in isolation, be regarded by some as reflecting outstanding architecture, but it
may be entirely appropriate to the context.
Such a response was reinforced by the Tribunal in Tvarkouski v Knox CC [2012] VCAT
847, where Member Naylor said:
The Council submitted that the design is not outstanding architecture as sought
in DDO7 and I note that the development of policies and DDO controls across
metropolitan Melbourne these days often includes terms such as outstanding
architecture, architectural excellence, quality design outcomes or the like. Such
terms have been commented upon in a number of Tribunal decisions in the past
but without any clear consensus as to what they mean, other than it is an
undefined and difficult concept. This is particularly difficult given that the State
Planning Policy Framework does not call for outstanding architecture or
architectural excellence, rather the State planning policies seek an acceptable
outcome and good design, and talk about preferable decisions rather than it
being the best and most desirable.
By and large, the Tribunal’s consideration of what constitutes outstanding architectural
design is guided by previous VCAT decisions and a consideration of the broader policy
framework. Nevertheless, the lack of definition over this term has led to the overturn of
several Council decisions within the Boronia Activity Centre.
Equally as problematic was the confusion over whether sites were considered to be
within a ‘dispersed infill residential’ area or an area suited for ‘increased residential
density’. The Tribunal was hindered in determining the appropriate policy context for
these sites given the lack of definition within the control. This was explored by the
Tribunal in K Chaya v Knox CC & Ors [2013] VCAT 915. To some extent, revisions to
the control as a result of Amendment C95 have improved the clarity of the desired built
form response for each precinct.
The findings of the Tribunal highlight the need for policy and controls to be written in
plain and clear language, with terms defined where necessary to limit subjectivity in
application.
34
In relation to the Activity Centre boundary, several divisions of the Tribunal have
commented on the problematic interface issues with the Activity Centre’s north-eastern
boundary along Bambury Street. The southern side of Bambury Street falls within the
Activity Centre, while the northern side of the street is outside the centre. This part of the
Activity Centre is within the Dandenong Foothills and is subject to a framework of policy
and overlay controls that demand low scale development that achieves a particularly
strong landscape character.
There have been a number of cases before the Tribunal in the inter-review period4 which
have considered the challenge of addressing this interface and balancing competing
objectives which seek consolidation on one side of the street and low scale development
respectful of the Foothills on the other.
The cases have noted that these different policy contexts encourage very different
preferred character outcomes on either side of the street. The Tribunal’s view is that
such an approach is likely to lead to a disaggregated built form outcome that may not be
the intention of policy nor a desirable outcome.
The Tribunal’s conclusions are concisely summarized in Harvan Design v Knox CC &
Ors [2012] VCAT 1598, where it said:
I hold grave concerns for the future of Bambury Street, whereby the north side of
the road is contained within a Bush Suburban Area, whilst the southern side of
the road is contained within the Boronia Major Activity Centre. The policy behind
these two areas differs greatly from each other. As a result, I share residents
concerns that, if not appropriately managed, the north side of the street might
contain single and dual occupancy developments within a sparse setting, whilst
the south side of the street could contain two storey development in a far more
dense setting. This does not strike me as an integrated urban design outcome. It
is clear to me that a far better outcome (one that was suggested in the original
Panel Report of the Structure Plan itself) would have been to have the northern
boundary of the Boronia Major Activity Centre end with the primary school (to the
south of the subject site). But that is not the case, and I must assess this
proposal against the policy as it applies today.
4 See for instance: Harvan Design v Knox CC & Ors [2012] VCAT 1598, Peter Brown Architects Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2012] VCAT 1757, Oaten v Knox CC [2013] VCAT 684 and Naoufal v Knox CC [2014] VCAT 87.
35
To some extent, this issue has been tempered by the changes to the Boronia Activity
Centre controls as part of Amendment C95, which acknowledge that the complex suite
of controls that affect the land within the Activity Centre limit its development potential.
As the Tribunal said in Naoufal v Knox CC [2014] VCAT 87:
The parameters for development within this precinct are now clearly set out in
DDO7. Importantly it is a specific design objective to recognise within the foothills
area that environment and landscape significance outweighs the need for urban
consolidation. This effectively nullifies the prima facie policy support for more
intensive residential development that would normally exist in a major activity
centre.
Amendment C133 seeks to implement the changes sought under Amendment C95 on a
permanent basis. On 27 January 2015, the Council adopted the Amendment and
resolved to submit the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for gazettal.
Nevertheless, the implementation of Council’s Housing Policy as part of Amendment
C131 includes the southern side of Bambury Street within the General Residential Zone
and the northern side in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. It seems likely that a
disaggregated future built form outcome will be anticipated in this area, with the potential
for a lack of cohesion between the northern and southern sides of the street, given that
each zone has a different purpose and seeks different built form outcomes.
In light of these VCAT cases, Council is provided with an opportunity to actively review
the control and determine whether amendments are required to achieve an integrated
urban design outcome along Bambury Street and address other policy matters.
We note that Council recently deferred a review of the Boronia Structure Plan until 2016-
175, in order to assess the effectiveness of the controls in the broader context of the new
zoning regime. While we support a holistic review of the Structure Plan and its controls,
however, Council should consider the implications of any delay to a review of the
Structure Plan, given the significant issues raised by the Tribunal.
GAMING POLICY
One case before the Tribunal considered Council’s Responsible Gaming Policy, which is
an adopted Council policy that is yet to be incorporated into the Planning Scheme.
In Richmond Football Club Ltd v Knox CC [2010] VCAT 1913, the proponent sought to
5 See Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting, 27 January 2015
36
provide an additional 10 electronic gaming machines to the Wantirna Club premises,
which already operated 77 electronic gaming machines. Council refused the application
on the basis of non-compliance with its Responsible Gaming Policy and the likely social
harm that would arise from the installation of the additional machines.
In considering the weight to be given to this policy, the Tribunal said:
We agree with the Tribunal’s finding in Bright Newbay Pty Ltd v Bayside CC, that
a policy concerning responsible gaming is a relevant consideration, but if it is an
informal policy it should be given little weight. The gaming policy in this instance,
however, is of little assistance in our determinations. It is not a planning policy in
relation to the location of gaming machines.
The Tribunal went on to find that there were limited social and economic factors relevant
to its consideration of the proposal and that the status and content of the Responsible
Gaming Policy did not assist the Tribunal in this regard.
This case highlights the importance of developing policy and strategies in a manner that
can be appropriately referenced or incorporated into the Knox Planning Scheme. Careful
drafting will be required to ensure that policies are relevant and provide assistance in
exercising discretion.
4.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS
Since the last planning scheme review, eleven (11) separate planning scheme
amendments were referred to an Independent Panel for consideration. Broadly, the
Panel supported these planning scheme amendments, either as exhibited or subject to
minor modifications.
In some of the Panel reports for these amendments, the Panel identified areas where
further strategic work needed to be undertaken by Council.
BORONIA MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRE
Amendment C62 to the Knox Planning Scheme implemented the Boronia Structure Plan
(2006), by applying the Design and Development Overlay to land within the centre and
introducing a new local policy at Clause 22.06.
The Amendment was approved in February 2011. At the time of the Panel’s
consideration of the Amendment, it noted that the Structure Plan that underpinned the
controls was 5 years old. The Panel was satisfied that the Structure Plan maintained
37
currency and was relevant. However, it suggested that ongoing monitoring should occur
to ensure that it remains timely and relevant. It said:
The Panel notes that Practice Note 58 – Structure planning for activity centres
recommends that structure plans should be reviewed every four years to coincide
with the planning scheme review process. The Panel agree it would be
appropriate to review this Plan as part of the next planning scheme review to
ensure it takes into account newly released ABS data, demographic changes,
VCAT decisions, panel reports, revisions to State policy, changes to local policy
and further strategic work undertaken by Council, as well as adequately responds
to the issues which face Boronia. The Panel considers this is particularly relevant
given Council advised it is about to review the Housing Strategy and prepare
Residential Development Guidelines which may have a significant impact on any
review.
The Panel’s comments are relevant to structure planning for the City’s activity centres
more broadly. A best practice approach to the management of land use and
development within centres and the municipality as a whole should include a process of
periodic review and adjustment in order to ensure that the structure plans and
associated planning controls are achieving desired objectives and outcomes.
In terms of Boronia, several VCAT cases (some of which are discussed earlier in this
report) suggest that the existing Structure Plan and associated controls are leading to
confusing or undesirable outcomes in some circumstances. This is particularly noted
along the northern side of Bambury Street, which sits at the northern fringe of the activity
centre. It is noted that the Panel recommended that this boundary be altered to align
with the rear of the primary school to the south. In reaching this conclusion, it said:
The Panel considers that Ms Oaten’s submission raises a valid concern which
relates to the appropriateness of designating boundaries along streets rather
than property boundaries. The Panel agrees with the submitter that this can lead
to situations where development on one side of the street is quite different to that
on the other, which is not a desirable outcome, particularly in this area where
there is a need to strike a balance between the increased development and
protecting significant landscape values associated with being at the foothills of
the Dandenong Ranges. The Panel agrees there is a need to ensure that
development on the boundaries of the activity centre does not present a sharp
edge to adjoining residential areas outside of the activity centre.
38
Council resolved to maintain the boundary as exhibited. Recent amendments to the
Knox Planning Scheme in Amendments C95 and C133 have sought to maintain this
boundary but provide added definition and clarity to development at this interface.
The Panel for Amendment C133 noted that this interface requires careful management
to balance competing policy objectives. To achieve this balance at the northern
interface, it designated these areas as ‘Established Residential’ areas, where limited
change was anticipated. The Panel considered this to be a sound approach, by noting
that:
While it is clear that there has been considerable change in some streets, the
Panel does not agree that these are necessarily poor outcomes. Boronia is a
major activity centre and as such change, in a policy sense, is invited and higher
density development should be expected.
Having said that, the Panel also acknowledges the need to manage the interface
with lower density residential areas and more sensitive areas, particularly in this
case, the Dandenong Foothills policy area. Council has endeavoured to achieve
that by identifying ‘Established Residential’ as the designation for a relatively
small proportion of residential properties in the Boronia Activity Centre and
specify more stringent design standards for those areas.
The Panel for Amendment C133 considered submissions which called for a review of the
activity centre boundary and a holistic review of the structure plan. The Panel observed
that the introduction of new residential zones and the Knox Housing Strategy would alter
the policy settings and provide a different permit assessment regime that will lead to
different planning outcomes. It agreed with Council’s submission that deferring a review
of the Boronia Structure Plan until there was sufficient time to monitor the operation of
these controls in context.
HEIGHT CONTROLS IN ACTIVITY CENTRES
There have been three amendments to the Knox Planning Scheme considered by
Panels that have applied discretionary or mandatory height controls to activity centres
within the City (Amendments C54, C62 and C129).
Broadly, each Panel has supported the proposed height controls. Indeed, the Panel for
Amendment C54 noted that:
While a preferred maximum of 3 storeys (or even 4 or 5 levels) would likely
39
appear overlay constraining in other MACs, as Mr Glossop submitted,
development in Bayswater has been very unadventurous so far as heights are
concerned.
Panels have also repeatedly acknowledged the challenge of tempering height limits in
Knox’s major centres, which (save for Knox Central) are generally located close to the
sensitive Dandenong Foothills. In Amendment C129, the Panel supported a mandatory 8
metre height limit in the Ferntree Gully Neighbourhood Activity Centre. It considered that
the Amendment struck the right balance between advancing consolidation objectives
and protecting the village character of the centre, which is within the Foothills of the
Dandenong Ranges. It concluded:
The Panel considers that the potential for development, although limited, is
consistent with policies for consolidation around railway stations given the
foothills location, character and static catchment population of the Village.
In Amendment C62, Council initially proposed two storey height limits in parts of the
Boronia Major Activity Centre. The Department’s response to this was to encourage
Council to adopt a minimum three storey height limit, to acknowledge that the land within
the Activity Centre had greater development potential than surrounding land, which was
within the Residential 3 Zone and had a 9 metre height limit.
At exhibition, Council proposed 11-14 metre height limits within the Boronia Major
Activity Centre. The Panel supported the proposed height limits and said:
The Panel recognises that increases in building heights in residential areas is a
contentious and at times, highly emotive issue, however the inclusion of height
controls and future development within these areas must be based on sound
planning principles.
Boronia is and has for some time been identified as a Major Activity Centre, and
this is strongly recognised in the strategic policy framework at both the State and
Local planning policy level. It is recognised as being one of the key areas within
the municipality where new residential development will be focused, taking
advantage of the shopping/community facilities and public transport all within
walking distance. It is therefore logical to expect there will be a greater
concentration of residential development within this area, and that this will include
increases in building heights. This is particularly the case in Boronia, where land
in the surrounding hinterland within a Residential 3 Zone, already has a 9m
40
height limit which is greater than that which currently exists within the Residential
1 zoned land within the Activity Centre.
It concluded that the 11 metre height limit was a balanced, reasoned and appropriate
response within the Foothills.
Despite the Panel’s conclusion that an 11 metre height limit was strategically sound, and
resistance to lower height limits within the centre, the Council went on to adopt the
Amendment with reductions in discretionary height limits to 7.5 metres (two storeys) in
some parts of the centre, including within the Foothills. This approach was subsequently
supported by the Minister for Planning.
STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Amendment C131 sought to implement the reformed residential zones that were
included into the Victoria Planning Provisions by Amendment V8 on 1 July 2013. The
application of the zones was underpinned by the Knox Housing Strategy 2015, which
adopted a scaled approach to development across the municipality, which categorised
each residential area into one of four key typologies.
The reformed zones give greater clarity about the type of development that can be
expected in any residential area; allow a broader range of activities to be considered;
and assist in better managing housing growth.
The Amendment applied a mixture of the three residential zones as follows (based on
designations within the Knox Housing Strategy):
Bush Suburban Areas – Neighbourhood Residential Zone;
Knox Neighbourhood Areas – General Residential Zone – Schedule 2;
Local Living Areas – General Residential Zone – Schedule 3; and
Activity Areas – Residential Growth Zone – Schedules 1 and 2 and General
Residential Zone – Schedules 2, 3 and 4.
The Schedules to be applied to each area include significant variations to the
requirements of Clauses 54 and 55, as guided by the Knox Residential Design
Guidelines 2013.
In general, the Panel supported the Amendment subject to some modifications. It noted
that the Council’s selection and application of the suite of residential zones was based
41
on a sound foundation (in the form of the Housing Strategy and Residential Design
Guidelines) and that, in most cases, zone selection was appropriate.
The Panel was, however, critical of the Council’s selection of the Neighbourhood
Residential Zone outside the Foothills and the provisions of some schedules.
In relation to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Council proposed to apply this to the
Dandenong Foothills and discrete pockets of ‘Bush Suburban’ areas that displayed a
heavily vegetated character. The Panel said:
It is not clear to the Panel why the NRZ needs to be applied to areas outside the
Foothills, although it understands Council’s rationale and the background to the
proposal. The Panel also notes that these areas are currently subject to the
GRZ2 and its mandatory maximum height of 9m.
Council argued that the ESO2 and VPO4 are inadequate by themselves to
enhance tree canopy and vegetation cover, and that applying the NRZ2 would
address this and be consistent with PN78. However, it has not been made clear
to the Panel how or why the current overlays are deficient (particularly in regard
to protecting the environmental values identified in the Sites of Biological
Significance in Knox report) and why they would need to be augmented with the
NRZ.
The Panel concluded that, on balance, the application of the NRZ to the Bush Suburban
Areas outside the Foothills lacked strategic support and justification and that there was
no demonstration that current controls were failing to achieve the desired outcomes.
In terms of the other zones, the Panel supported Council’s zone selection for each area.
However, it did raise concerns with the content of schedules in relation to height and
variations to the Standards of Clauses 54 and 55.
In relation to height, the Panel noted that the Council had sought to apply height limits
that were either inconsistent with existing policy, or lacked strategic justification. In the
Foothills, Council proposed to apply the NRZ with a 7.5 metre mandatory height limit.
Existing policy established a preferred 7.5 metre height limit for some areas of the
Foothills, with no limit for others, while the Residential Design Guidelines recommended
an 8 metre height limit. The Panel was critical of this discrepancy, where it said:
The Panel does not believe that a case has been made for a mandatory
maximum height of 7.5m throughout the Dandenong Foothills area. In forming
42
this view, the Panel notes that a 7.5m height is inconsistent with:
- The 8m recommended in the RDG [Residential Design Guidelines].
- The 9m included in the current GRZ2 (and former R3Z).
The Panel also notes that there is a range of different height requirements in the
Dandenong Foothills policy and in the various DDOs that apply to the Foothills
area. In light of this variation, it cannot be argued that a mandatory maximum
height of 7.5m reflects or is consistent with existing provisions.
The Panel went on to conclude that the mandatory 8 metre height limit as the ‘default’
maximum height limit in the NRZ was appropriate and relied on the support for an 8
metre height limit in the Residential Design Guidelines. However, the Panel supported
this on the basis that architectural features be exempt from this limit.
The Council has accepted the Panel’s recommendation to increase building heights in
the version of the Amendment submitted to the Minister for approval.
In the Knox Neighbourhood Areas and Local Living Areas, Council sought to apply an 8
metre mandatory height limit in the Schedule to the General Residential Zone. The Panel
was again not satisfied that Council had adequately demonstrated why an 8 metre
mandatory height limit was required, particularly in the context of the existing Residential
3 Zone applying a 9 metre height limit. The Panel also considered that three storey
development could be appropriate in these areas and that a 9 metre limit would strike a
balance between the benefits of locating more intensive development close to centres
and acknowledging local character.
Despite the Panel’s recommendations to increase building heights in these areas,
Council has retained the 8 metre height limits in the version of the Amendment submitted
to the Minister for approval.
The Panel report for Amendment C131 acknowledges that Council has undertaken
considerable strategic work that has guided the application of new residential zones
across the municipality. The general view of the Panel is that Council’s strategic
justification for the application of zones and amendments to local policy is sound.
Council is to be commended for its approach to housing policy.
Importantly, the Panel’s concerns about the application of mandatory controls and the
Neighbourhood Residential Zone demonstrate that the rationale for applying stringent
43
controls that limit development potential must be based on a comprehensive analysis of
existing conditions and preferred future outcomes. Such an analysis must clearly explain
why a departure from existing policy is required.
44
5. STATE STRATEGIC CONTEXT
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Document the strategic work that has been completed or carried out since the approval of the scheme and any additional work required to strengthen the strategic direction of the planning scheme.
5.1 OVERVIEW
Since the preparation of the previous Knox Planning Scheme (KPS) review, there has
been considerable changes to policy at the state level, including the introduction of
various planning policies and initiatives.
Current Government initiatives that have been developed or are being considered
include:
Modifications to the Planning and Environment Act;
New time frames (Ministerial Direction 15) for the Planning Scheme Amendment
Process;
‘VicSmart’ system which introduces standard State-wide requirements for low
impact planning permit applications;
Review and inclusion of new zones including revised Rural Zones, Residential
Zones, Industrial Zones and Business Zones (now Commercial Zones);
Melbourne Metropolitan Plan (‘Plan Melbourne’);
Bushfire protection provisions, as well as inclusion of new areas mapped to be
contained within the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO);
Review of the SPPF and LPPF Framework culminating in the release of a new
Planning Policy Framework (PPF) in draft form for public comment in March
2014;
The review of the local development contributions system; and
Introduction of a revised Native Vegetation Framework.
These initiatives will have significant implications for the KPS and may require
45
consequential amendments in the future – particularly the new PPF, the new Native
Vegetation Framework, the modified Residential, Commercial and Rural Zones and the
revised Developer Contribution regime.
The following section provides greater detail on some of the notable state initiatives
since the last review.
5.2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT
The Planning and Environment Amendment (General) Act 2013 came into operation on
28 October 2013. The key reforms in the ‘Amendment Act’ include:
making it mandatory for the Responsible Authority and the Planning Authority to
take account of the social effects and economic effects of the use or
development of the land when preparing an amendment to a planning scheme
and when issuing planning permits;
providing for two types of referral authority that will be set out in planning
schemes being a determining referral authority who has the power to require a
permit application to be refused or for certain conditions to be included in a
permit; and a recommending referral authority who may comment on an
application;
providing for a Planning Application Committee to work with councils to deliver
better local planning decisions;
providing for reporting to the Minister by planning authorities, responsible
authorities and referral authorities to improve the transparency of the planning
system;
improving the processes for amending planning schemes and assessing planning
permit applications by reducing delays and speeding up information exchange;
improving the decision-making process at the Victorian Civil and Administrative
Tribunal;
improving the operation of planning agreements by expanding the options for
amending and ending legal agreements;
amending the Subdivision Act 1988 in relation to public open space and include
consequential minor changes to the Subdivision Act 1988 and the Local
46
Government Act 1989;
ensuring that if a planning scheme specifies the level of public open space
contribution in Clause 52.01, there is no power to vary or reduce it in the event
that section 18(1A) applies;
confirming the right of the Proponent to be heard in a Panel hearing; and
giving Planning Panels the option of holding ‘Directions Panels’ whereby a
number of Directions Hearings are conducted on the one day.
The mandatory provision to consider social and economic issues is particularly important
as previously there was only a requirement to consider significant environmental matters
with discretion for Council as to whether social and economic effects were to be
considered.
5.3 AMENDMENT VC102
Amendment VC102 amended the model Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and
planning schemes as a result of the above amendments.
The amendment gave effect to the Victorian Government’s commitment to altering the
referral authority status of some authorities to enable local councils to make decisions on
permit applications and permit conditions. The amendment designated some agencies
(such as catchment management authorities) as a ‘recommending’ referral authority. A
recommending referral authority can comment on a permit application but, unlike a
determining referral authority, it does not have the power to require the application to be
refused or for certain conditions to be included in a permit. This may have implications
for those agencies that are no longer able to make determinations and may encourage
them to specify conditions which could be included in overlay schedules.
The implications of this for permit applications is that the Country Fire Authority is a
recommending referral authority for applications to develop land with a dwelling or to
subdivide land in the Bushfire Management Overlay. The Council’s statutory planning
department will need to be mindful of this distinction in the future consideration of
applications.
47
5.4 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
In May 2012, the Minister for Planning announced the Government’s preferred
framework for development contribution plans which outlined a new system of standard
levies that can be selected and applied to different development settings. The new
system provides Councils with a set of standard development contribution levies for
different development settings based around five infrastructure categories:
Community facilities;
Open Space facilities;
Transport infrastructure;
Drainage infrastructure; and
Public land.
The Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee to provide advice on the
framework for the new development contributions system and on the establishment of
the standard levies. Council made a detailed submission to the Committee. The Advisory
Committee reported in December 2012 and May 2013. In May 2014, the then Minister
for Planning announced the introduction of Standard Levies for development
contributions in priority growth locations, the implementation of a new Infrastructure
Contribution Plan and a streamlined approval process.
The proposed 1 July 2015 introduction date for standard levies is expected to be
delayed as the new Minister for Planning is reviewing the standard levy system.
5.5 NEW VPP ZONES
In March 2013 the State Government released three reformed residential zones for
Victoria to replace the existing residential zones. The government provided some criteria
for Councils to use in determining where the residential zones might be applied as
follows:
Residential Growth with heights of up to 4 storeys, with townhouse/apartment
dwellings to be located around activity centres and adjacent to train stations.
Neighbourhood Residential with heights of 2 storeys, with single dwellings/dual
occupancies best suited to heritage precincts (HO), environmentally significant
48
areas (ESO), landslip areas (EMO) and flood prone areas (LSIO).
General Residential with heights of 2-3 storeys, single/dual/villa/townhouses
suited to all other locations.
All Councils had until June 2014 to apply the new residential zones. Some Councils,
selected all three zones to apply while others elected to ‘roll-over’ the Residential 1, 2
and 3 zones (R1Z, R2Z and R3Z) into the new General Residential Zone (GRZ) pending
more detailed analysis.
As few councils had finalised their implementation by 1 July 2014, the Minister for
Planning approved Amendment VC116 on that date to remove the R1Z, R2Z and R3Z
and to replace them with the GRZ.
The Knox Planning Scheme was amended accordingly with 2 standard schedules as
part of the ‘rollover’ translation. Schedule 1 reflects the provisions of the former R1Z,
with Schedule 2 including the requirements of the R3Z and its associated Schedule. A
further Amendment (C131) will implement the full suite of residential zones in line with
Council’s adopted Housing Strategy. This Amendment was adopted by Council in
January 2015 and has been submitted to the Minister for approval.
On 13 November 2014, Schedule 6 to GRZ was added to the Knox Planning Scheme. It
affects the area known as Ferntree Gully Village.
In April 2013, the State Government also released changes to the existing industrial
zones and introduced two new commercial zones to replace the existing business zones.
Unlike the residential zones, the Minister for Planning undertook the translation of the
industrial and commercial zones. These changes were implemented into the Knox
Planning Scheme in July 2013. Ordinance changes for the new commercial and
industrial zone were implemented into the Knox Planning Scheme in July 2013 via
Amendment VC100. Since then, Amendment C134 has been submitted to the Minister
for approval which will amend the zoning maps for commercial zones in line with the
ordinance changes for VC100.
In September 2013, the state government completed its zone review and implementation
when it released changes to the existing rural zones.
49
5.6 PRACTICE NOTES
In November 2013, the State government released six new Practice Notes that are
aimed at explaining the role of recent zone changes or which explain how certain
applications will be assessed. The six new Practice Notes are:
Practice Note 15 “Assessing an Application for One or More Dwellings in a
Residential Zone”;
Practice Note 16 “Making a Planning Application for One or More Dwellings in a
Residential Zone”;
Practice Note 37 “Rural Residential Development”;
Practice Note 42 “Applying the Rural Zones”;
Practice Note 62 “Green Wedge Planning Provisions”; and
Practice Note 78 “Applying the Residential Zones”.
5.7 PLAN MELBOURNE
The State Government released its metropolitan strategy, ‘Plan Melbourne’ in May 2014.
Plan Melbourne is a strategy to house, employ and move more people within the
metropolitan area. Plan Melbourne aims to provide a clear vision for the future of
Melbourne that responds to the pressures of population growth, the drive for economic
prosperity, the need for liveability, and the protection of environment and heritage
assets.
The metropolitan planning strategy also addresses Melbourne’s infrastructure, housing,
employment, transport and environment challenges in an integrated approach bringing
together land use, transport, social and community infrastructure. This vision for
Melbourne is underpinned through the seven outcomes of the Plan Melbourne Strategy:
Delivering jobs and investment: Create a city structure that drives productivity,
supports investment through certainty and creates more jobs.
Housing choice and affordability: Provide a diversity of housing in defined
locations that cater for different households and are close to jobs and services.
A more connected Melbourne: Provide an integrated transport system
connecting people to jobs and services and goods to market.
50
Liveable communities and neighbourhoods: Create healthy and active
neighbourhoods and maintain Melbourne’s identity as one of the world’s most
liveable cities.
Environment and energy: Protect our natural assets and better plan our water,
energy and waste management to create a sustainable city.
A state of cities: Maximise the growth potential of Victoria by developing a state
of cities which delivers choice, opportunity and global competitiveness.
Implementation: Delivering better governance: Achieve clear results through
better governance, planning, regulation and funding options.
Knox is within the Eastern Subregion. A key focus for the Eastern Subregion will be
consolidating its future growth in targeted areas. Opportunities for transport upgrades
include existing and potential road and rail links, including the East West Link and the
Rowville Rail Link.
The Knox Private Hospital (Wantirna Health Precinct) is identified as a health precinct of
State significance.
The following activity centres within the City of Knox have been identified as places of
local significance:
Wantirna South-Knox Central Activity Centre;
Bayswater Activity Centre;
Boronia Activity Centre;
Mountain Gate Activity Centre; and
Rowville-Stud Park Activity Centre.
The following precincts have been identified as investigation areas, specifically as areas
with “Investment and Employment Opportunity”, to take advantage of their proximity to
the East-West Link:
Bayswater/Bayswater North Industrial Precinct; and,
Scoresby-Rowville Industrial Precinct
51
Amendment VC106 was approved on 30 May 2014 and it amended all planning
schemes in Victoria (including Knox) to recognise Plan Melbourne. The Amendment also
includes a new Clause in the State Planning Policy Framework (at Clause 9) which
states that all references to 'Melbourne 2030', 'Melbourne 2030: A planning update',
'Melbourne @ 5 Million', the 'Activity Centres and Principal Public Transport Network
Plan, 2010' , are to be disregarded and, where relevant, planning must consider and
apply Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Department of Transport,
Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014).
5.8 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK REVIEW
The State Policy Planning Framework (SPPF) is a foundation element of the Victorian
planning system and the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP). It sets the key policy
directions for state planning issues. A review of the SPPF is presently being undertaken
so as to ensure that all state policy matters align and integrate with the key strategic
directions. It is particularly required to ensure that it aligns with the newly developed
Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Plan Melbourne).
The Local Policy Planning Framework (LPPF) is the other central element of the
Victorian planning system that was introduced at the same time as the Victoria Planning
Provisions (VPP). The LPPF principally consists of a Municipal Strategic Statement
(MSS) at Clause 21 but it can also contain Local Planning Policies at Clause 22.
The LPPF is intended to give local expression to the range of state policy issues
identified in the SPPF, as well as deal with implementation of other local planning policy
issues. The MSS identifies key local issues and includes objectives and strategies to
address these issues. The MSS also identifies the implementation tools (zones and
overlays) that will be used by Council to deliver the objectives and strategies.
The state government announced a review of the SPPF in 2013 and it appointed an
Advisory Committee with clear Terms of Reference. As part of its SPPF Review, the
state government asked the same Advisory Committee to advise on how a revised LPPF
structure might dovetail with any possible new SPPF structure. The Committee was
specifically asked to advise on:
The role, structure and format of a revised LPPF, including MSS and local policy.
The revised MSS must align with and compliment the revised SPPF.
How a revised LPPF could be implemented across Victoria.
52
The committee released its preferred PPF model on 21 March 2014 for consultation. The
revised PPF format includes:
Consolidating state, regional and local policy on specific themes rather than split
across different parts of the planning scheme.
Making the PPF easier to navigate
Removing outdated policy
Updating the framework to reflect Plan Melbourne and regional growth plans
The draft Planning Policy Framework has been prepared to:
drive a fundamental change in the way decisions are made to a facilitation
approach rather than a regulation approach
be more user friendly by being easier to read, understand and navigate
include more graphics to show spatial policies effectively
link state, regional and local policy to better align policy matters ensuring local
policy retains its important role.
In preparing the draft PPF, the Committee brought the state and regional policy content
of planning policy up to date including:
ensuring that key strategic directions identified in Plan Melbourne and regional
growth plans are clearly articulated in the framework and can be implemented
into planning schemes across Victoria
ensuring the policy framework supports recent major reforms to the state's
commercial, industrial, residential and rural zones, assisting councils to deliver
certainty in achieving their strategic objectives.
All state, regional and local policy on a particular issue is to sit within the one new PPF
Clause, rather than being spread across the SPPF, MSS and Local Policies.
The draft PPF for all planning schemes includes high level state policy about each issue
to provide a context for decision making at a macro level.
However only relevant detailed policy that applies to a particular municipality is included
53
in the draft PPF (for example, Knox does not contain detailed alpine or coastal policy).
At the time of completion of this review, there is still no formal direction from the State
Government about the status or likely future direction of the proposed PPF, and whether
or not it will be actively pursued. This has led to a level of uncertainty for all councils in
proceeding with any rewrite and restructure of their LPPF.
5.9 NATIVE VEGETATION
In September 2012, the state government announced a review of Victoria’s native
vegetation clearing regulations. The aim of the review was to improve and strengthen the
regulatory system to deliver better outcomes for the environment and the community.
Reforms to the native vegetation permitted clearing regulations were announced (in
September 2013) and will ensure a stronger focus on the value of native vegetation for
statewide biodiversity and a reduced regulatory burden for landholders. The priority
reforms for native vegetation included:
clarifying and amending the objective of the permitted clearing regulations;
improving how the biodiversity value of native vegetation is defined and
measured; and
ensuring offsets provide appropriate compensation for the environment.
The native vegetation reforms commenced following approval of Amendment VC 105
on 20 December 2013. The amendment implements reforms to Victoria’s native
vegetation and biodiversity provisions by:
Amending Clause 12.01 (Biodiversity) to reflect the new ‘no net loss’ approach
rather than the previous ‘net gain’ approach;
Amending Clause 52.16 (Native vegetation precinct plan) to reflect the intent of
the native vegetation and biodiversity reform package;
Amending Clause 52.17 (Native vegetation) to rationalise information
requirements, implement the new risk-based assessment pathways, include a
simplified approach for applications under a low-risk based pathway and
streamline the determination of offset requirements;
Amending Clause 66.02-2 (Native Vegetation - Referral and Notice Provisions) to
54
require the class of application in the high risk pathway as defined in the
document ‘Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment
guidelines’ (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September
2013) be referred to the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Primary
Industries as a recommending referral authority;
Amending Clause 81.01 (Incorporated Documents) to replace ‘Victoria’s Native
Vegetation – Framework for Action’ with a new incorporated document ‘Permitted
clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines’ (Department
of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013).
5.10 BUSHFIRE
On 29 May 2014, and in the wake of the Bushfire Royal Commission, the state
government announced significant changes to Victoria’s bushfire planning regulations,
aimed at providing greater certainty to residents and landowners in bushfire designated
areas. Key features of the reforms include:
allowing private bushfire bunkers as an alternative safety measure, where there
may be increased bushfire safety risks that need additional consideration
allowing vegetation clearance to achieve defendable space. The cleared area
around a home is vital to protecting the home’s occupants. Vegetation clearance
obligations (‘defendable space’) would be limited to the title boundary of the
relevant property
ensuring the assessment of bushfire risk is consistent with the Australian
Standard
allowing more sensible bushfire safety measures in new master-planned estates
allowing homes to be built on ‘infill’ lots surrounded by other dwellings. Where a
dwelling is allowed, it will be able to be built with a fair and equitable bushfire
response.
A new $700,000 Bushfire Planning Assistance Fund was also announced which will
enable affected landowners and councils to streamline planning processes.
On 31 July 2014, VC109 introduced changes the Victoria Planning Provisions and all
Victorian planning schemes by amending:
55
Clause 44.06 ‘Bushfire Management Overlay’ (BMO) to move the application
requirements to Clause 52.47 and include a new mandatory condition for bushfire
bunkers.
Clause 52.17 ‘Native Vegetation’ to enable the clearing of native vegetation to be
undertaken by private landholders on Crown land with the written permission of
the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries for the
purposes of maintaining wild dog exclusion fences.
Clause 52.47 ‘Planning for bushfire’ to provide approved and alternative bushfire
safety measures for new single dwellings, replacement or extension to an
existing dwelling and other buildings.
Clause 52.48 ‘Bushfire Protection: Exemptions’ to provide exemptions for the
provision of defendable space for a dwelling approved under the BMO.
Clause 66 ‘Referral and Notice Provisions’ to change the referral authority status
for relevant fire authorities (CFA) from 'determining' to 'recommending referral'
authority, for some types of development.
This amendment made significant changes to the bushfire management provisions
within the planning scheme. Amendment C110 to the Knox Planning Scheme followed
on from this amendment and updated local policy to ensure that it was consistent with
State policy in relation to bushfire management.
5.11 VICSMART
The Minister for Planning set up the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory
Committee in 2011 to (among other things) provide advice on ways of improving the
planning system including the legislative base, the structure of planning schemes
including the structure of state and local policy provisions, as well as regulations under
the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
The Committee delivered its initial report to the Minister in December 2011 and made
three recommendations relating to the assessment of planning permit applications being:
A system of planning permit application streams should be developed for
different land use and or development categories. These streams should align
with revised notice provisions, referral authority procedures and adjusted
timelines for decision making.
56
A Code Assess process be developed and piloted in selected municipalities for
a variety of buildings and/or works and/or nominated subdivision proposals.
(Emphasis added).
An audit of existing permit triggers in the planning scheme be undertaken to
identify where permit triggers could be reduced.
The Advisory Committee noted that there were procedural and public policy benefits in
‘codifying’ existing practices and in introducing different types of permit application
processes that more appropriately align with the scale and impact of proposals.
The Committee suggested that a two stream permit application approach, consisting of a
‘Code Assess’ stream and a ‘Merit Assess’ stream, could be a way to organise classes
of permit applications. The committee proposed that planning permit applications
submitted in the Code Assess category would be required to comply with clear
quantitative criteria and, if it did, then it would be exempt from notice requirements. If a
decision maker was required to make a judgement about a qualitative objective or
specific design outcome, then the application would not be suitable for the Code Assess
stream. The application would be required to progress through the Merit Assess process.
The Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act 2012
was enacted in September 2012 to allow a new streamlined permit process to be set up
in planning schemes for straightforward, low impact development proposals.
Key features of the VicSmart process are:
A decision within ten business days.
An applicant is expected to submit all the necessary information with the
application.
No need for external referrals.
An applicant is expected to obtain any referral authority approval before lodging
the application.
Exempt from advertising.
The application is only assessed against specific pre-set decision guidelines.
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the council or a delegate will decide the
57
application.
An applicant has a right of review to VCAT if there is disagreement about
whether the decision guidelines have been met.
Councils will also have the opportunity to ‘schedule in’ low risk permit applications under
local provisions to be assessed under the VicSmart process. The VicSmart provisions
were introduced into the Knox Planning Scheme in September 2014.
5.12 REVIEW REPORT CONCLUSIONS ON STATE CONTEXT
The extensive changes at the state level since the last review will have profound
implications for the Knox Planning Scheme. We are advised that these changes had a
significant resourcing impact on Council in relation to its ability to review, provide
meaningful input, make submissions and respond as appropriate to the changes at a
State level, in very short timeframes.
At the very least, an entirely new planning scheme structure is likely to be required so as
to align with the new PPF model. Consequential changes arising from the new zones,
modifications to development contributions, native vegetation, and bushfire management
will also have an impact on the structure and content of the scheme.
58
6. LOCAL STRATEGIC CONTEXT
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Document the strategic work that has been completed or carried out since the approval of the scheme and any additional work required to strengthen the strategic direction of the planning scheme.
This section of the report identifies key land use strategic directions, initiatives and
actions that are contained in strategic and governance documents at the local level that
have been adopted since the last planning scheme review.
6.1 KNOX CITY PLAN 2013-2017
The Knox City Plan 2013-2017 was endorsed by Council at 25 June 2013. The City Plan
articulates an overarching vision for Council and the City.
It incorporates five core themes, each with supporting objectives and strategies that are
aimed at achieving the aspirational vision of the City towards 2017. The key themes and
objectives outlined in the City Plan are:
Healthy, Connected Communities
The Knox community benefits from good health and wellbeing at all life stages.
A safe community with strong community connections and where learning and
volunteering are valued and supported.
Prosperous, Advancing Economy
Knox has a strong local economy that supports business growth, jobs and
community wealth.
Improve local opportunities for people to live, work, learn and play in Knox.
Vibrant and Sustainable Built and Natural Environments
The changing needs of a diverse community are supported through planned
growth and change in housing and infrastructure that respects both built form and
natural systems, and resource availability.
Biodiversity and places of natural significance, including waterways and open
space are highly valued, protected and enhanced.
59
Infrastructure networks provide transport choice, affordability and connectivity.
Culturally Rich and Active Communities
Improve the acceptance and valuing of diversity and difference in the Knox
community.
Increase use of public spaces and infrastructure for the purposes of cultural
expression and physical activity.
Democratic and Engaged Communities
Improve community leadership and participation in Knox.
Increase opportunities for the Knox community to participate in public decision-
making processes.
Ensure Council is well governed and demonstrates effective leadership.
The City Plan incorporates the Council Plan. The Council Plan is the principal planning
document for Council. It details a series of objectives and strategies that are designed to
advance the Vision for each of the five key themes within the City Plan.
6.2 KNOX COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLBEING STRATEGY
(2013-2017)
The Knox Community Health and Wellbeing Strategy (2013-2017) identifies the health
and wellbeing needs of the City’s community. The Plan was developed in accordance
with the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and builds upon the Council’s existing
health related strategies and programs. The Plan is centred on eight key priorities for
health and wellbeing, which include:
Personal health and wellbeing;
Community connectedness;
Leisure, recreation/arts and cultural activities;
Housing affordability and choice;
Family violence;
60
Lifelong learning;
Mental health; and
Lifestyle risks.
These directions seek to promote maximum levels of health and wellbeing within the
community by assessing actual and potential public health issues and providing
strategies to address these issues.
The key priorities each relate to the key themes and objectives of the Knox Vision and
City Plan 2013-2017.
It is proposed that the Knox Integrated Strategy will supersede the Community Health
and Wellbeing Plan once it has been approved by Council, expected to be in mid-June
2015.
6.3 KNOX VISION: OUR CITY, OUR FUTURE
Knox Vision: Our City, Our Future (2013-2017) sets out the shared aspirations of the
Council and the Knox community for the future of the City.
The vision for the City is set out across the five key themes of:
Healthy, Connected Communities;
Prosperous, Advancing Economy;
Vibrant and Sustainable Built and Natural Environments;
Culturally Rich and Active Communities; and
Democratic and Engaged Communities.
The key themes established in the Vision directly relate to the objectives, strategies and
initiatives set out in the City Plan.
6.4 OTHER COUNCIL ADOPTED STRATEGIES
Since the last planning scheme review there has been a considerable amount of
strategic work prepared and adopted by Council. While some of these have a more
direct relationship with land use planning (and therefore the planning scheme), all of the
documents will have some bearing on changes within the City in the foreseeable future.
61
Relevant adopted documents include the following:
Access and Inclusion Plan for People with Disabilities 2011-2015;
Arts and Cultural Plan 2012-2022;
Bayswater Triangle Master Plan (February 2011);
Bicycle Plan 2008;
Community Safety Plan 2013-2017;
Ferntree Gully Village Structure Plan (June 2014);
Integrated Transport Plan 2015;
Knox Economic Development Strategy 2008-2018;
Knox Housing Strategy 2015;
Knox Leisure Plan 2014-2019;
Knox Residential Design Guidelines 2015;
Liveable Streets Plan 2012-2022;
Municipal Early Years Plan 2011-2015;
Multicultural Strategic Plan 2012-2017;
Native Vegetation Net Gain Policy (2011);
Open Space Plan 2012-2022;
Rowville Plan (January 2015);
Sites of Biological Significance in Knox – 2nd Edition (2010);
Stamford Park Master Plan (July 2014); Sustainable Environment Strategy 2008-
2018;
Waste Management Plan 2014-2021; and
Youth Strategic Plan 2012-2017.
62
A brief summary and commentary on some of the significant strategic work mentioned
previously is set out as follows:
KNOX HOUSING STRATEGY 2015
The Knox Housing Strategy was adopted by Council at its meeting of 27 January 2015.
The Housing Strategy was commissioned by Council to update the strategic guidance for
managing residential development across the municipality.
The Strategy anticipates that the population of the City is expected to grow by 14.9% to
a total population of 177,588 by 2031, an increase of 22,964 people. The composition of
the municipality’s population structure is changing, with an aging and more diverse
community emerging. The Strategy also acknowledges that the municipality is in the top
10 for households experiencing mortgage and rental stress, with the provision of social
and affordable housing a significant issue.
To respond to this changing profile, the Strategy identifies that the key housing
challenges for the municipality include:
The provision of affordable and social housing;
Achieving housing diversity;
Achieving environmentally sustainable design;
Achieving architectural quality in design; and
Providing accessible housing for the elderly and people with limited mobility.
The Strategy seeks to provide greater certainty over the level of housing change
anticipated across the City’s residential areas, by adopting a ‘scaled approach’ to
residential development. The scaled approach encourages higher density residential
development in identified areas which have good access to public transport, shopping
facilities and services. It also envisages a lower scale of development in areas of
environmental and landscape significance or those remote from services and transport.
Following the scaled approach, the highest levels of residential development are
anticipated in the Activity Areas, which are either on a SmartBus route or train line and
are close to the City’s larger shopping centres and leisure facilities. Local Living Areas
also anticipate a reasonably high level of change, given their proximity to the lower order
activity centres such as Wantirna Mall, Scoresby Village and Stud Park. The Knox
63
Neighbourhood areas are remote from services and a lower level of change is expected,
to ensure that development provides a sense of open space and retains Knox’s green
and leafy image. At the lowest end of the scale is the Bush Suburban Areas, which can
include environmentally significant assets, such as the Dandenong Foothills. In these
areas, low change is anticipated.
Utilising the scaled approach to development has enabled Council to strike a balance
between the protection of neighbourhood character with the need to facilitate housing
growth and population growth and to respond to the changing household needs of that
population.
Amendment C131 seeks to implement the findings of the Knox Housing Strategy 2015.
The Amendment makes numerous changes to local policy to support the intent of the
Strategy. The Amendment also applies the suite of reformed residential zones in a
manner that differentiates areas between the four key housing typologies identified in the
Strategy.
KNOX RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES 2015
The Knox Residential Design Guidelines serve a complementary role to the Knox
Housing Strategy. The Guidelines provide detailed built form guidance for housing
across the municipality, with the exception of land within the Dandenong Foothills and
the Knox Central, Bayswater and Boronia Activity Centres, where detailed planning
controls are already in place.
The Guidelines set out the preferred character and preferred housing types for each of
the four housing areas. It also provides detailed design guidance on matters such as site
coverage, setbacks, heights, private open spaces landscaping and vehicle storage.
Amendment C131 includes the Residential Design Guidelines as a reference document
at Clause 21.09. The proposed Schedules to the residential zones to be implemented as
part of this Amendment also include variations to the Standards of Clauses 54 and 55
that directly relate to the design guidance provided for each precinct.
64
ROWVILLE PLAN 2015
The Rowville Plan 2015 sets out the vision and direction for the Stud Park Shopping
Centre and the surrounding residential areas over the next 20 years. The Plan replaces
the Stud Park Structure Plan (Stages 1 and 2), which previously provided built form
guidance for development in the Stud Park, Rowville Major Activity Centre.
The Plan identifies that over 34,000 people live, work or visit Rowville every day. It
acknowledges that the area surrounding the Rowville Activity Centre has been faced
with significant development pressure in recent years and that this has placed demands
on infrastructure.
The Vision for the Plan is for Rowville to meet the changing needs of the current and
future population, with a desire to maintain the qualities that make the area an attractive
place to live and work. The Key Directions of the Plan seek to achieve this vision by
increasing housing choice in and around the activity centre, while protecting the broader
neighbourhood and maintaining the leafy character of the area.
In terms of land use and development outcomes, it encourages a broad mix of land uses
within the Activity Centre and higher density residential development along Stud Road
and the areas immediately surrounding the shopping centre. The Plan adopts the
housing area typologies of Activity Areas, Local Living and Knox Neighbourhood, as
defined in the Knox Housing Strategy to provide detailed guidance on the level of
change, preferred housing typologies and desired built form outcomes for each area.
Amendment C131 seeks to implement the findings of the Rowville Plan. It includes a
new local policy at Clause 22.12 ‘Rowville Activity Centre’, rezoning residential land
within the Activity Centre, introduces a Development Plan Overlay for the Stud Park
Shopping Centre and introduces a Design and Development Overlay to provide
guidance for opportunity sites.
FERNTREE GULLY VILLAGE STRUCTURE PLAN (JUNE 2014)
The Ferntree Gully Village Structure Plan sets out the future guidance for land use and
development within the Ferntree Gully Village and was adopted by Council in June 2014.
The Vision for the centre seeks a strong village which serves the daily needs of the local
community, shaped by its landscape setting and niche community offering.
The Structure Plan acknowledges the context of the centre within the Dandenong
Foothills and recommends the adoption of a mandatory 8 metre height limit across the
65
centre to reflect the character of the surrounding landscape and recognise significant
environmental assets.
In turn, the Structure Plan recognises that there are modest opportunities to
accommodate more housing within the centre, to support the role and function of the
commercial offering and to allow residents to take advantage of the close proximity to
fixed rail transport.
Amendment C129 implemented the findings of the Structure Plan into the Knox
Planning Scheme on 13 November 2014. The Amendment introduced the General
Residential Zone – Schedule 6 to residentially zoned land within the centre and a Design
and Development Overlay (Schedule 8). Both controls applied a mandatory 8 metre (2
storey) height limit across the centre, with the DDO articulating additional built form
guidance. The Amendment also made changes to local policy and introduced a new
local policy at Clause 22.11 ‘Ferntree Gully Village Local Policy’.
BAYSWATER TRIANGLE MASTER PLAN 2011
The Bayswater Triangle Master Plan provides strategic guidance that builds on the
vision set out in the Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan, Bayswater 2020. It
specifically applies to land known as the Bayswater Triangle and was adopted by
Council in February 2011.
The Bayswater Triangle is generally bound by Scoresby Road, Mountain Highway and
Station Street in Bayswater. It forms an area of approximately 11.4 hectares, which
includes a mixture of commercial and community services and the Bayswater Railway
Station.
The Master Plan provides three options for the future redevelopment of the Triangle,
which ultimately conclude that the relocation of the Bayswater Hotel and alterations to
the rail infrastructure within the Triangle would support the best future land use and
development for the land. It assumes that this result will increase opportunities for
connectivity with the remainder of the Bayswater Activity Centre.
The Master Plan concludes that these outcomes are not without future challenges, and
acknowledges that a significant amount of work and coordination with partners (including
VicTrack) will be required to achieve the desired outcome.
The Master Plan has not been incorporated into the Knox Planning Scheme.
Implementation of the recommendations of the Bayswater Triangle Master Plan into the
66
KPS should be undertaken as part of a wider review of the Bayswater Activity Centre
Structure Plan and associated planning controls. Its implementation should also take into
account the findings of the Bayswater North Employment Precinct project and the
implications for future undergrounding of the two rail crossings in Bayswater.
SITES OF BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN KNOX, 2ND EDITION (2010)
The Sites of Biological Significance in Knox, 2nd Edition study provides a broad overview
of native vegetation and wildlife across the municipality. It aims to provide an
understanding of the biological significance of flora and fauna, threats and opportunities
for improvements.
The Study identified that native vegetation or areas with indigenous tree cover occupy
less than five percent (5%) of the municipality. It also noted that there were discoveries
of vegetation of state-wide biological significance that were previously not considered to
be significant. A total of 77 sites were found to have State level significance.
The Study also hypothesized that 27 species of plants could be confidently presumed to
be extinct in Knox and that most of those were suspected of becoming extinct in the last
decade, largely due to drought and quarrying.
In general, the Study found that indigenous flora was not well conserved, with a high
degree of indigenous plants considered to be critically endangered and that higher levels
of extinction could be anticipated if measures weren’t taken to arrest existing patterns. It
recommended that the Vegetation Protection Overlay and Environmental Significance
Overlay be applied to regulate land use and development that pose a risk to threatened
species and vegetation communities.
Amendment C49 implemented the findings of the Sites of Biological Significance in
Knox, 2nd Edition study into the Knox Planning Scheme on 11 April 2013. The
Amendment applied Environmental Significance Overlays (Schedules 2 and 3) and
Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 4 to sites displaying biological significance.
STAMFORD PARK MASTER PLAN (2014)
The Stamford Park Master Plan outlines a framework for the development of Stamford
Park, which is a 52 hectare site adjacent to Corhanwarrabul Creek in Rowville. The land
is wholly owned by Council and is currently used as a cleared floodplain for grazing. The
land is of regional bio-significance and has a degree of cultural heritage, with an existing
homestead on the site.
67
The Master Plan seeks the following vision for Stamford Park:
Stamford Park is to be a place of historical reflection, cultural immersion and
connection to country, a place for all to just be yourself.
The Master Plan divides the site into a number of precincts, which include 45 hectares of
parkland, wetlands, a central community gathering space, 6.3 hectares of residential
development at varying densities and the preservation of the existing Stamford Park
Homestead and Gardens.
Amendment C93 introduced Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 9 to the site.
However, this amendment is based on an older version of the Master Plan (2010).
Similarly, the MSS refers to a 2013 version of the Master Plan, which is also out of date.
It is recommended that Council update the references in the Scheme to refer to the
Master Plan adopted by Council in June 2014.
OPEN SPACE PLAN 2012-2022
The Knox Open Space Strategy 2012-2022 provides guidance on the provision and
maintenance of open space within the municipality.
The Plan identifies that Council has more than 700 hectares of open space, which is
used for informal leisure activities and active sports by the community.
The Plan is centred on four key strategic directions for future management of open
space and are:
Create healthy creek corridors that people love;
Activate community hubs;
Empower the community to be stewards of open spaces; and
Engender a network of sustainable spaces.
In summary, the Plan found that the provision of open space was generally adequate
across the municipality, although there were nine areas where accessibility to and
amenity of open space could be improved.
It also recognises the challenges of providing adequate public open space to cater for
future population increases. It is anticipated that future structure planning within activity
68
centres will provide the framework for addressing the adequacy of open space provision
on a locational basis.
6.5 CURRENT STRATEGIC PROJECTS
Planning is a dynamic process and inevitably further work will be commissioned and
completed by Council. This will then need to be absorbed into the Knox Planning
Scheme. Some of that work will be done within Council, while other work will be from
external sources. Relevant Council projects that are currently in preparation include:
ALCHESTER VILLAGE AND THE BASIN
The Council is currently reviewing built form controls within Alchester Village and The
Basin, which are both neighbourhood centres within the Dandenong Foothills.
Council is currently undertaking further strategic work and consultation on the future
direction for each centre which may result in built form planning controls being
introduced into the Knox Planning Scheme.
THE UPPER GULLY PLAN
Council is currently developing a draft Upper Gully Strategic Plan and Streetscape
Design Project(Masterplan), which will provide the strategic vision for Upper Ferntree
Gully.
As part of this project, targeted community engagement was undertaken in October and
November 2014 and the draft Strategic Plan is expected in mid-2015.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LOCAL POLICY
In 2013, six councils (Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and
Yarra City) jointly proposed the incorporation of best practice environmentally efficient
design policies within their Local Planning Policy Frameworks.
The policies set out qualitative objectives relating to energy efficiency, water resources,
indoor environment quality, stormwater management, transport, waste management and
urban ecology. The policies also require certain types of development to be
accompanied by a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) or Sustainability Management
Plan (SMP).
These Amendments have been submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.
69
Knox City Council has joined the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment
(CASBE) and is seeking an Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policy,
similar to the six other councils mentioned previously. .
BAYSWATER / BAYSWATER NORTH / KILSYTH EMPLOYMENT PRECINCT
Knox City Council has partnered with Marooondah City Council and Yarra Ranges Shire
Council, with the support of the State Government, to investigate opportunities for
renewal within the precinct.
The precinct comprises an area of approximately 730 hectares. The Partnership is
currently investigating ideas and actions that can be utilized in a Bayswater Precinct
Business Development and Investment Program.
The project may result in an integrated planning approach across the three councils to
implement consistent planning controls for the precinct.
JENKINS ORCHARD REZONING
The Jenkins Orchard is a significant landholding in the west of the municipality, located
adjacent to Eastlink. The land is currently zoned Rural Living and is an active orchard
enterprise.
Amendment C74 proposes to rezone the land to a mixture of Commercial 1 and
General Residential and seeks to provide for residential development and a
neighbourhood centre.
The Amendment has been submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.
KNOX INTEGRATED STRATEGY
Council is in the process of developing the Knox Integrated Strategy, which integrates
the overarching direction emerging from Council’s Economic Development Strategy,
Sustainability Strategy and the Community Health and Wellbeing Plan.
The Strategy seeks to integrate a number of strategies and plans that have a direct
relationship and bearing on the planning system. These initiatives include measures to
address:
Health and wellbeing principles in planning;
Integrated life inclusion;
70
Supply of alcohol;
Healthy food access and choice;
Crime prevention through environmental design;
Problem gambling;
Structure planning for activity centres;
Development contributions plans;
Employment strategies;
Development of the Wantirna/Knox Private Hospital Health Precinct;
Housing design, diversity, affordability and opportunities;
Urban design;
Community infrastructure and facilities;
Vegetation retention and landscaping;
Biodiversity; and
Cultural heritage.
A draft of the Strategy is expected in the first half of 2015.
6.6 REVIEW REPORT CONCLUSIONS REGARDING LOCAL
STRATEGIC CONTEXT
As is reflected in the discussion above, Council has completed a significant and
commendable amount of strategic work since the last formal review of the scheme.
This strategic work highlights Council’s proactive approach to responding to State
government reform and addressing localised issues within the municipality through the
planning system.
It is important that Council be mindful that an adopted piece of strategic work is not the
‘end of the story’. In many ways, it is just the beginning. Adopted strategic work only
assumes decision-making status (in terms of planning matters) once it is implemented
71
into the Knox Planning Scheme. Council must ensure that it implements adopted
strategies into the planning scheme where they have a bearing on land use and
development decision-making. Where this work has not been completed to date, it is
possible to incorporate it into an upcoming amendment recommended by this review to
rewrite the Local Planning Policy Framework.
In the context of having a clear implementation program, Council must also be careful
not to overcommit itself in its strategic work plan. It is clear that a significant number of
the recommendations of the 2010 review are yet to be incorporated into the Knox
Planning Scheme. The prioritisation and scheduling of tasks is considered essential to
ensure that issues are addressed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.
72
7. PROGRAM OF CONTINUOUS REVIEW
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Outline the consultation process and its outcomes
7.1 METHODS OF CONSULTATION
This section of the report assesses the performance of the Knox Planning Scheme in
terms of the stakeholder consultations.
Council has maintained a rolling program of reviewing the performance of its scheme
through the day to day monitoring and update of its Planning Scheme. Council
recognises that the dynamic nature of strategically based planning schemes requires a
constant and ongoing monitoring and review. The monitoring and review since the
introduction of the planning scheme has consisted of:
Community consultation on all strategic work;
Adopted planning scheme amendments;
Current planning scheme amendments;
Commissioning of further strategic work; and
Development of an on-going strategic work program.
7.2 PURPOSE OF CONSULTATION
There are no prescribed formal consultation processes associated with the performance
review of the Knox Planning Scheme under the provisions of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987. However, Council considers that consultation is an important
part of the monitoring and review process. Reviewing existing documentation was not
considered to be enough to measure the performance of the planning scheme and
planning processes. The purpose of the consultation was to understand stakeholder’s
expectations, how they perceive the planning scheme and processes and how they can
be improved.
The Council has recently undertaken extensive community consultation as part of the
Knox@50 program, the Housing Strategy and the many other strategic projects
undertaken by Council during the inter-review period (including structure plans, planning
scheme amendments and the like). All of this consultation has been informative in
73
understanding community concerns and aspirations in relation to land use and
development related issues.
Given the volume of consultation undertaken to inform Knox@50, the Housing Strategy
and all other strategic work undertaken in the inter-review period, this planning scheme
review provided more targeted consultation and focused on engagement with Council
staff, government agencies and select community groups.
7.3 KNOX@50 – OUR CITY, OUR FUTURE
In 2012 and 2013, Council undertook extensive engagement with the local community to
provide an understanding of the drivers of change for the City’s future development. The
consultation was the most wide-reaching since the development of the Council’s Vision
in 2005-2006 and led to engagement with over 10,000 people across the City of Knox
through measures such as an online survey, telephone survey, vox pops, community
forums and focus groups.
The catalyst for the project was the 50th anniversary of the commencement of the Shire
of Knox and community and Council concern over the rate of change within the
municipality, particularly around housing development within activity centres.
The consultation sought to raise awareness of the drivers of change facing the City
towards 2030 and to encourage dialogue to inform the Council’s future Vision for Knox
and development of policy options, including the development of the City’s Housing
Strategy. Equally, the outcomes of this consultation have implications for the Knox
Planning Scheme and this review.
The Knox@50 Final Report (March 2013) identified that there were several challenges,
which had land use planning policy implications, including:
The challenges of caring for and housing an aging population;
Providing diversity in housing;
The importance of ‘living local’; and
Providing reliable public transport.
These matters are discussed in more detail in Chapters 8 and 9 of this report.
74
7.4 CONSULTATION AS PART OF THIS REVIEW
The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy underpinned the consultation stage of this
Planning Scheme Review. Acknowledging that Council had already undertaken
extensive community consultation as part of the Knox@50 program, the Housing
Strategy and structure planning for various centres, the review incorporated a discrete
and targeted engagement with the wider community.
Internally, extensive consultation was undertaken with a broad range of Council staff.
In summary, the preparation of this Planning Scheme Review Report has been informed
by consultations with:
Councillors;
Council staff including:
o Director – City Development;
o Manager – City Futures;
o Manager – City Planning and Building;
o Coordinator – Strategic Planning;
o Coordinators – Statutory Planning;
o Strategic Planners;
o Senior Statutory Planners;
o Statutory Planners;
o Subdivisions Planner;
o Business Support Coordinator – City Development;
o Planning Customer Service;
o Manager – Sustainable Infrastructure;
o Manager – Community Wellbeing;
o Coordinator – Place Program;
o Coordinator – Corporate Planning;
o Coordinator – Social Policy and Planning;
o Coordinator – Early Years Integrated Services;
o Coordinator – Community Safety and Development;
o Coordinator – Community Access and Equity;
o Coordinator – Leisure Services;
o Coordinator – Age Friendly Planning;
o Coordinator – Asset Preservation;
75
o Coordinator – Traffic and Transport;
o Coordinator – Open Space;
o Coordinator – Waste Management;
o Coordinator – Stormwater;
o Coordinator – Asset Strategy;
o Prosecutions Coordinator – Local Laws
o Team Leader – Youth Development;
o Landscape Officer;
o Arborist;
o Municipal Building Surveyor;
o Biodiversity Officer;
o Bushland Management Officer;
o Senior Traffic Engineer;
o Transport and Traffic Engineer;
o Transport and Traffic Officer;
o Facilities Project Delivery Officer;
Agencies and authorities including:
o Environmental Protection Agency;
o Department of Environment and Primary Industries;
o Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning;
o VicRoads;
o Melbourne Water;
o South East Water; and
Community members.
The program of engagement included five workshops with relevant Council staff, an
issues briefing with Councillors on 11 November 2014, engagement with government
agencies and an online survey of interested persons and a meeting with two local
residents.
Council’s planning officers were engaged in several workshops. Two of these sessions
focused primarily on the opportunities for reducing red tape within the planning scheme,
while an additional session with the City Development team looked more broadly at the
performance of the Knox Planning Scheme and emerging issues.
Relevant Council Advisory Committees were briefed on the Planning Scheme Review.
The committees are advisory bodies to Council and generally consist of Councillors,
76
Council staff/management and some community representation. The committees
consulted as part of the Planning Scheme Review project were:
Transport and Mobility Advisory Committee;
Arts and Cultural Development Advisory Committee;
Recreation and Leisure Liaison Group;
Economic Development Committee;
Housing Advisory Committee;
Community Health and Wellbeing Reference Group; and
Knox Central Advisory Committee.
Feedback from the Advisory Committees was conveyed to the review via the Council
officers who represented those committees attending the internal workshops.
7.5 ADOPTED LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS
(2010 – 2014)
Since the 2010 Planning Scheme Review, there have been a total of 73 local planning
scheme amendments that have been finalised. The number of Amendments advanced
by Council since the last formal review of the scheme has been significant and reflects
Council’s desire to continually improve and update the scheme based on strategic
research. Notably, many of the Independent Panels that considered these Amendments
also made recommendations for further work to be undertaken to address unresolved
issues. A list of significant local amendments is included at Appendix Two.
7.6 STATE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS (2010 – 2014)
Since the 2010 Planning Scheme Review, there have also been numerous State and
regional planning scheme amendments that have been finalised. A list of significant
State and regional amendments is included at Appendix Three.
It is relevant that many of these amdnments have also resulted in the need for Council to
undertake further strategic work and local planning scheme amendments to respond to
these changes in State planning policy.
Council has been proactive in undertaking a continuous audit and review in some
77
aspects of its local policy and ensuring that it responds to the emerging direction of State
policy. In particular, Amendment C110 responded directly to State policy changes on
bushfire management, while Amendment C131 has sought to implement the new suite
of residential zones advanced by State Amendment VC103.
Notwithstanding Council’s proactive approach in this regard, it is clear that the Knox
Planning Scheme requires further change to ensure consistency with State policy and
contemporary planning guidance in relation to issues such as:
Biodiversity and vegetation (net gain);
Rural areas; and
Commercial areas and activity centre hierarchy.
78
8. MAJOR PLANNING ISSUES IN KNOX
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Identify the major planning issues facing the municipality.
8.1 EXISTING MSS ISSUES
The major strategic planning issues in Knox as identified in the current MSS and local
policies are:
URBAN DESIGN:
Urban form;
Fire safe development (both buildings and bushfire risk areas); and
Ecologically sustainable design.
HOUSING:
Residential development;
Public and social housing; and
Neighbourhood character.
ENVIRONMENT:
Natural environment;
Dandenong Foothills;
Dandenong Creek Valley;
Creek corridors and waterways;
Cultural heritage;
Aboriginal cultural heritage; and
Sustainability.
79
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Economic activity;
Industry/commerce precincts;
Activity centres; and
Non-residential uses in residential areas.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Providing and maintaining infrastructure;
Integrated transport;
Open space and recreation; and
Community health and wellbeing.
The MSS includes an extensive further strategic work program. In the inter-review
period, Council has undertaken and implemented some important strategic work, which
has been noted in earlier sections of this report.
8.2 EMERGING ISSUES
While all of the issues identified in the existing MSS remain relevant, based on the
consultations and analysis, emerging issues that arose during this planning scheme
review that may require some further planning scheme direction include the following:
Gaming;
Environmentally efficient building design;
Rural land use and development;
Industrial land capacity;
Development contributions plans;
Social impact assessment;
80
Liquor licencing;
Food and drink premises;
Vegetation net gain; and
Non-residential uses in residential zones.
While work on some of these issues has already commenced, these and other issues
should be a high to medium priority for ‘further strategic work’ during the next review
phase.
81
9. CONSULTATIONS – PLANNING ISSUES
A diverse and extensive range of issues that should be addressed in the current review
of the Knox Planning Scheme were identified during the consultation.
The following is an overview of the key issues that were raised during the consultation
that was undertaken during the review with planning staff, other Council staff, agencies
and key stakeholders.
This section of the report also includes a commentary on some issues which have been
raised by the community as part of the Knox@50 program, the Housing Strategy and the
community consultation associated with other strategic projects, where they have a
relevant bearing on planning policy and the Knox Planning Scheme.
For ease of reference the outcomes are presented under various ‘issues' that emerged
during the consultations.
9.1 ACTIVITY CENTRES AND EMPLOYMENT AREAS
At the issues briefing, some Councillors raised concerns about the strategic direction of
the municipality’s activity centres. These concerns were echoed by Council officers
through the combined workshop with City Development staff.
The commercial zone reform implemented into the Knox Planning Scheme via
Amendments VC100 and VC104 in 2013 saw the consolidation of Business 1, 2 and 5
Zones into the Commercial 1 Zone and the Business 3 and 4 Zones into the Commercial
2 Zone. Under these changes, there are a range of new uses, which are as-of-right or
permissible that were not contemplated by previous zones.
This standard translation of the new commercial and industrial zones could result in
outcomes where the original strategic intentions of the land are no longer met under the
new translated zone. This is best evidenced by land that was previously in a Business 5
Zone, which now might be more suited to a residential or mixed use zone than its
Commercial 1 Zone translation. Equally, in activity centres where previous objectives
and strategies arising from structure plans may be less effective under the provisions of
the new zones, a different zone may be more appropriate.
Additionally, Amendment GC6 saw the removal of floor space cap provisions within all
zones and overlays within the Knox Planning Scheme.
In light of these changes, Council is concerned, at both an officer and executive level,
82
about the ramifications of this change on the role of the City’s activity centres and retail
more broadly.
In some respects, these concerns were compounded by the policy gaps that have now
emerged with the differences in activity centre hierarchy within Plan Melbourne, and the
impact this has particularly on lower order activity centres which have no structure plan
to guide development. In turn, we understand that Council is concerned that a market-
led approach to development within commercial and industrial zones could undermine
the orderly planning of the City’s activity centres.
In any event, the overarching view from Councillors was that the Council requires a
commercial strategy that is strategically sound and provides strong policy support that is
defendable in decision-making at a local level and at the Tribunal and Planning Panels
Victoria.
There was robust discussion throughout the consultation period on the issue of built form
guidance within activity centres. There was a view expressed that some built form
controls (such as mandatory height provisions) are having implications on economic
activity within centres. There was also concern expressed about a lack of quality urban
design outcomes within centres. Equally, consultation as part of the Knox@50 program
highlighted community concern about the rate of change occurring in the built form of
activity centres. Some participants felt that increased densities in the City’s activity
centres eroded the City’s ‘green and leafy’ character and its character as having a
‘country feeling close to the city’.
There were also comments from strategic and statutory planning staff that there appears
to be a shifting emphasis from activity centre planning towards planning for employment
centres. In particular, it is noted that the State government’s Metropolitan Strategy, Plan
Melbourne, identifies the Wantirna Health Precinct as a Health Precinct that is of
strategic significance to the eastern sub-region. In turn, we understand that this shift in
emphasis and policy direction has influenced the Council’s desire for new economic
development strategies to reflect the vision and outcomes envisaged with this
designation.
9.2 INDUSTRIAL AREAS
In addition to the concerns raised about the proposed commercial zones and activity
centres, there were also concerns noted about the effect of changes to the industrial
suite of zones, implemented into the Knox Planning Scheme via Amendment VC100 in
July 2013.
83
Of the three industrial zones in the Victoria Planning Provisions, the City of Knox has
applied only the Industrial 1 Zone. There is a large industrial area in Bayswater, with
smaller pockets of industrial activity also located throughout the municipality.
The reformed Industrial 1 Zone removed floor space caps for use of the land for Office,
allowing broader office activity in heavy industrial areas. There is an underlying concern
that changes to the industrial zones will, in part, undermine the role of the City’s activity
centres as a location for offices and retail premises.
Council staff also highlighted there is very little appropriate strategic direction to guide
development within the City’s industrial areas, particularly in light of changing trends in
the manufacturing and industrial sectors.
In acknowledging the lack of strategic guidance currently provided for industrial areas,
there was consideration about the need for the City to develop a strong commercial and
industrial strategy to guide appropriate use and development within these areas.
There is also an opportunity for Council to apply the Industrial 3 Zone in industrial areas,
which have an interface with more sensitive locations, such as residential areas.
9.3 RURAL AREAS
Part of Metropolitan Melbourne’s Urban Growth Boundary is located within the City of
Knox’s boundaries. Areas to the east and south of the municipality are zoned Green
Wedge or Rural Conservation. Additionally, there are discrete pockets of land within the
Dandenong Creek Valley in the west of the municipality that are zoned Farming or Rural
Living.
Traditionally, there has been limited or no policy guidance on land use planning for these
areas within the Knox Planning Scheme, particularly where these areas are outside the
Urban Growth Boundary. It was previously considered that the zoning provisions had
provided a sufficient level of control in these areas.
Rural zone reform implemented into the Knox Planning Scheme via Amendment VC103
in September 2013 has resulted in a broader range of uses which are either as-of-right
or permissible in the rural suite of zones. For instance, the Rural Conservation, Green
Wedge and Farming Zones now allows for use of the land for markets, group
accommodation, caravan parks and restaurants. Additionally, the Farming and Green
Wedge Zones allow for permits to be granted for use of the land for a Place of Assembly.
84
Consultation as part of the Knox@50 program also identified that the City’s rural areas
could contribute to attaining food security in the region, which was itself viewed as an
important issue.
These changes have implications for land use planning outcomes in these areas.
Additionally, there was anecdotal evidence from Council that structures associated with
agricultural uses (such as sheds and shipping containers) are having an adverse impact
on landscape values within these areas.
In light of these issues, Council staff felt that this was a significant gap in Council’s
strategic planning and policy guidance that should be addressed.
9.4 THE KNOX URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK
The Knox Urban Design Framework 2020 (2003) (the ‘Knox UDF’) sets out an urban
design vision and framework to guide future development in both the public and private
realm throughout the municipality. The document is a reference document at Clause
21.09 of the Knox Planning Scheme.
The Framework is informed by six key elements of the City’s landscape and urban form
features, which are: the Dandenong Creek Valley; the Edge of the Suburbs; the Creek
Corridors; Activity Centres and Working Environments; Transport Corridors; and
Residential Environments.
The document was prepared in 2003 and in the 11 years since its adoption, the
character and form of the municipality has changed. Council staff acknowledged that this
Framework is a significant document in guiding land use planning, but that it has never
fully been translated into the Knox Planning scheme and its vision has never been fully
achieved.
It was a commonly held view that an overarching Framework such as the Knox UDF to
guide urban design outcomes within the municipality was desirable. It was also a
commonly held view that the Knox UDF should be reviewed and substantially updated to
provide contemporary urban design guidance for the public and private realm within the
City.
The authors of this review agree with this position. It is clear that the Tribunal and
Planning Panels have given significant weight to the UDF. The document provides
detailed guidance for urban design issues that are specific for the City.
85
Any future review of the UDF should consider opportunities to provide greater definition
of features and elements such as ‘bush boulevards’ and an ability to provide more
sophisticated design advice for key sites, where relevant. However, Council should be
cautious in ensuring it does not develop overly prescriptive design requirements. It will
also need to give careful consideration to the weight such requirements should be
afforded in the planning scheme. In some respects, this work would be complementary
to the Residential Design Guidelines implemented as part of the Housing Strategy.
9.5 RED TAPE REDUCTION IN OVERLAY CONTROLS
The scope of this Planning Scheme Review included an examination of opportunities to
reduce ‘red tape’ in terms of planning controls and permit triggers within the Knox
Planning Scheme.
This was facilitated through two targeted workshops with statutory planning staff which
examined the effectiveness of existing zone and overlay controls and reviewed
opportunities for consolidation, clarification and reduction in administrative burden.
This process identified that the majority of planning controls within the Knox Planning
Scheme were performing well and achieving intended outcomes in most circumstances.
However, the overlay controls within the Dandenong Foothills were identified as one
area where improvements could be made. Anecdotal evidence provided by Council staff
suggested that more than 40% of all permit applications in the City of Knox were
triggered by the controls that affect land within the Foothills.
It is noted that most properties within the Foothills are affected by a number of overlay
schedules, including:
The Design and Development Overlay;
The Significant Landscape Overlay;
The Environmental Significance Overlay; and
The Bushfire Management Overlay.
Each overlay applies a fairly sophisticated level of control, which triggers permits for a
range of activities including buildings and works, subdivision and vegetation removal. In
the case of some of these activities, the ‘trigger’ for a permit may differ between the
three overlays, meaning that a permit may be required under the Significant Landscape
86
Overlay and Design and Development Overlay, but not the Environmental Significance
Overlay (for instance).
There was also a view that the permit triggers for buildings and works are requiring
permits for a range of minor buildings and works that have no effect on landscape
values. Council staff suggested these triggers could be reviewed.
Council staff also acknowledged that the Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 2
was no longer appropriate in its current form. It was noted that the mapping of the
Overlay did not always accord with the relevant vegetation and property controlled by the
Schedule. Additionally, designation of properties within the Schedule relied on Melways
references, which added to confusion over whether a permit was required to remove a
particular tree.
In addition, some officers thought that it was timely to review Schedules 1 and 3 to the
Vegetation Protection Overlay. These controls were retained as part of Amendment C49
(Sites of Biological Significance). At the time, the Panel recommended that Council defer
deleting the Schedules until further strategic work was undertaken to determine whether
vegetation should be protected for the contribution it makes to the landscape. Given the
age of these controls and the operation of the Sites of Biological Significance controls, it
is timely to review these Schedules to the VPO.
Specific recommendations for opportunities to address red tape are set out in Chapters
13 and 14 of this report, which consider the effectiveness of the zones and overlays and
their schedules.
9.6 STRUCTURE OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
FRAMEWORK
The feedback from staff regarding the structure of the Local Planning Policy Framework
(LPPF) was that it was a ‘layered’ and ‘dense’ statement with much repetition.
This is consistent with the Panel’s assessment of Council’s MSS in Amendment C70 (the
last major planning scheme rewrite amendment), where it said that there were
opportunities to improve the functionality and readability of the document, reducing
complexity and confusion to users. The Panel noted that there was significant repetition
within the LPPF, particularly in relation to Housing and Neighbourhood Character, where
there was overlap between provisions within the MSS and the LPPs. Moreover, the
Panel considered that the urban design theme was confusing because its objectives
related to urban form. It also recommended that transport was worthy of its own theme,
87
given the unique challenges of the municipality in this regard.
While it was noted that, concurrent with this review, the Council is proposing to
significantly amend and restructure its LPPF components on Housing as part of
Amendment C131, it was considered by some that it was time that a more fundamental
review of the structure of the LPPF take place to better align it with the SPPF.
To some extent, an active review of the LPPF has been delayed by the uncertainty
created by the potential restructuring of the SPPF at a State level into the PPF. The
Council is understandably reluctant to expend resources on addressing the structural
issues of the LPPF if changes at a State level ultimately make such work redundant.
In terms of a proposed future structure of the LPPF, the structure and format of the Knox
Integrated Strategy may provide an appropriate structure for the LPPF, given that
Council is presently seeking to incorporate all of its overarching strategic plans and
strategies within the Knox Integrated Strategy.
More detailed discussion on a preferred future structure for the LPPF is provided at
Section 11.4 of this report.
9.7 CONTENT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICY
FRAMEWORK
In content terms, Council staff felt that there were several policy gaps, in addition to
those discussed above (rural areas, activity centres and industrial areas), that warranted
attention. These gaps include:
Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas – In the last restructuring of the
LPPF, the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas Policy was deleted and
consolidated into the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21. It was the view
of Council officers that this had resulted in less weight being afforded to the
Council’s policy position on review of decisions at the Tribunal. It was suggested
that this policy again be given status as a local policy at Clause 22. The
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has advised
that it is willing to consider appropriate local policy where there is evidence that
the guidance in the MSS is insufficient.
Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) – There is currently limited
policy guidance on ESD initiatives within the Knox Planning Scheme. A number
of inner urban councils (Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse
88
and Yarra) sought to amend their Planning Schemes to incorporate
Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policies. We understand that
the City of Knox is seeking to have similar controls incorporated into its Planning
Scheme. It has signed up for the “Stage 2” group of councils seeking to introduce
ESD initiatives into the Scheme, but is also willing to conduct a “standalone”
amendment.
Advertising Signs - It was acknowledged that there is limited local guidance at
the local level within the Knox Planning Scheme for advertising signage. This
was seen by statutory planners as a significant local policy gap.
Additionally, there was recognition from some staff that the content of the Local Policies
at Clause 22 could be reviewed and rationalised. In particular, there was a view shared
among officers that the local policies for individual activity centres (such as the Boronia
Activity Centre Policy at Clause 22.06 and the Bayswater Activity Centre Policy at
Clause 22.05) could be rationalised, provided there was stronger guidance on activity
centres within the MSS and a relocation of some requirements to the relevant Design
and Development Overlays.
Equally, there is a view among some staff that the collapsing of some policies from
Clause 22 into the MSS has an undesired consequence in that it leads to a dilution of
policy in the eyes of the Tribunal upon review of applications.
A rationalisation of policy at Clause 22 could also assist in remedying the dense
structural issues of the Scheme, identified earlier.
9.8 ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINES
Council adopted an Electronic Gaming Policy in 2011. The policy broadly seeks to
manage the social and economic impacts of gaming machines within the City and
encourages no net increase in machines across the municipality.
Anecdotal evidence from Council staff suggested that the incorporation of such a policy
into the planning scheme is necessary to provide a policy context for consideration of
electronic gaming machines by Council and VCAT upon review. The impetus for this is
the research undertaken by Council which suggests that the density of gaming machines
in Knox exceeds the metropolitan average and that losses per person were also higher
than the metropolitan average.
The 2010 Planning Scheme Review recommended that this piece of strategic work be
89
incorporated into the Planning Scheme, although the view at the time was that this policy
was not ready for implementation. Council is currently undertaking a review of this earlier
work on gaming premises, with a view to implementing relevant recommendations into
the Knox Planning scheme.
The Tribunal’s decision in Richmond Football Club discussed in Section 4 of this report
demonstrates the Tribunal’s reluctance to give weight to policies when they are not in the
planning scheme either as a policy, incorporated document or reference document.
Indeed, the Tribunal’s logic in Richmond Football Club provides principles that have
broader relevance to all strategic work undertaken by Council. Council should be under
no illusion that the adoption of policy is the end of the story. In order for Council policies
to be afforded weight in decision-making in planning matters at the Tribunal and
Planning Panels, it is important that relevant adopted policies are implemented into the
Knox Planning Scheme.
9.9 LIQUOR LICENSING
There was also concern from Council staff about the high number of licensed liquor
outlets throughout the municipality. Officers highlighted that research and mapping of
outlets had indicated a high presence of packaged liquor outlets, particularly along main
roads and within activity centres.
Staff acknowledged that access to alcohol supply was a significant social and public
health issue. Council had undertaken research, which indicated the prevalence of
packaged liquor outlets was causing harm. Council’s Community Safety Plan also
acknowledges that access to alcohol is a significant issue.
There is currently no Licensed Premises Policy within the Local Planning Policy
Framework. Further research should be undertaken by Council to determine whether a
policy should be developed to provide the tool to exercise discretion in the consideration
of permits for liquor outlets as part of a broader solution to the issue.
9.10 FAST FOOD OUTLETS
The Knox Community Health and Wellbeing Plan and Knox City Plan both promote
healthy and connected communities. Some Council staff raised concerns about the
prevalence of fast food outlets across the City and the need to regulate access to supply
in order to promote the healthy community aspects of Council’s vision.
The recent Tribunal decision and subsequent community action against fast food outlets
90
in nearby Tecoma has galvanised Council and the community in efforts to reduce access
to such outlets.
The application of planning policy to regulate fast food outlets is a problematic issue. For
instance, the use of land for a food and drink premises will not require a planning permit
in the Commercial 1 Zone or many other zones. It follows that the application of policy to
regulate such activities within that zone will be impossible, with planning only able to
control physical issues such as built form, traffic and signage.
Council officers were realistic about the limited ability of social planning policy in
influencing planning decisions on the location of fast food outlets and the like. Officers
did, however, express a desire to explore the use of general liveability and healthy by
design guidelines to assist in improved decision-making and built form outcomes.
Council officers are aware that these planning tools have been used by other councils to
provide guidance and local policy support to achieve improved outcomes, and is looking
to investigate these tools for use across a range of land use and development scenarios,
not just fast food outlets. Officers see this work as forming part of the overall review of
the LPPF.
9.11 NATIVE VEGETATION AND BIODIVERSITY
There were various discussions about native vegetation and biodiversity among Council
officers.
In terms of native vegetation removal, Council has an adopted internal policy that follows
a net gain approach, similar to former State Government plans. It seeks to avoid,
minimise and offset the loss of native vegetation throughout the municipality, in that
order. In terms of offsets, it seeks a more localised approach, by providing offsets within
the boundaries of the municipality.
Given the recent changes to State policy on native vegetation removal, it is clear that
Council now needs to review its native vegetation removal policies that sit both within
and outside of the MSS and the relevant Overlay schedules, to ensure that they better
align with the State policy context and remain relevant in achieving their desired local
biodiversity outcomes. Such policies should then be implemented into the MSS as part
of the LPPF rewrite.
It is relevant that advice from DELWP indicates that the new Labor State government
may review the State level approach to native vegetation removal. We understand that
91
there is a possibility that this may result in a return to the ‘net gain’ approach. Council
should consider delaying any reform to local policies on native vegetation removal until
there is clearer direction at the State level in this regard.
9.12 LANDSCAPING
Landscaping was identified as a significant issue for development within the municipality.
In broad terms, these issues related to a desire to retain the ‘green and leafy’ image of
the City, which is a much valued community perception.
Council landscape officers identified that the tree canopy of Knox as a whole is
shrinking, as sites are redeveloped at a greater intensity. They expressed a desire to see
more vegetation retained in development where possible, although acknowledged the
difficulty in achieving this outcome in areas where permits were not required for
vegetation removal.
Equally, there was a view that landscaping within development was not providing an
appropriate response to the City’s landscape character. In particular, there was a view
that there was insufficient room for canopy tree planting in design responses for many
medium density developments.
This view was shared by Boronia residents who responded to the online survey, who
expressed a desire for more canopy tree planting in the Boronia area, particularly within
the activity centre.
The proposed Schedules to the reformed residential zones under Amendment C131
incorporate improved landscaping requirements and include planting ratios for canopy
trees. There is a view from planning staff that these requirements may assist in more site
responsive designs which provide canopy tree planting. This outcome should be
monitored as part of a broader monitoring and review of the application of the reformed
residential zones. Further refinements to local policy and zone and overlay controls
should be considered if this review identifies that the zones are not providing the
outcome that Council seeks.
9.13 CULTURE AND HERITAGE
The Knox Planning Scheme currently provides limited guidance in terms of heritage and
cultural heritage. Further, Council has not undertaken any significant strategic work to
assess areas of cultural or historical significance within the municipality since the early
1990’s.
92
A recommendation of the 2010 review was that Council should undertake a Cultural
Heritage Study.
There is a need for a Study to encompass indigenous heritage and multicultural issues.
Staff highlighted that exploration of the City’s cultural and historical assets may empower
communities to actively care for and maintain places of heritage significance.
Staff also suggested that such a Study could provide Council and the community with
the means to identify, protect and maintain such assets.
9.14 DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC SITES
Strategic Planning staff identified a lack of strategic guidance within the LPPF for the
redevelopment of strategic sites.
The Knox Housing Strategy and, in turn, local policy identifies these sites but provides
little guidance on the parameters that should guide future redevelopment. Council staff
who are involved in planning scheme amendments to rezone strategic development sites
find that there is no general framework on requirements for these sites. This is leading to
inconsistent outcomes, as proposals are determined on an ad-hoc basis, with little
strategic justification for requirements.
There are opportunities for the planning scheme to incorporate general and specific
guidance for the limited number of strategic redevelopment sites identified in local policy.
9.15 TRAFFIC AND PARKING
Council’s traffic engineers highlighted that they are beginning to experience problems
with car parking, particularly within residential development near activity centres.
There was a general view that the parking provisions of Clause 52.06 did not adequately
reflect local conditions and context, such as the lack of fixed rail public transport and the
high rates of vehicle ownership and reliance on private vehicle for trips within the
municipality. Councillors in particular expressed concerns about the minimum parking
rates for apartments being insufficient in areas like Knox due to these factors.
It was suggested that the Parking Overlay may assist in addressing this issue. The
Overlay allows the Council to vary the standard car parking rates to suit local conditions.
However, the incorporation of a Parking Overlay into the planning scheme will require
strategic justification.
93
The justification for the introduction of the Parking Overlay will require the preparation of
aParking Strategy, which assesses local parking conditions and transport opportunities
and constraints in each area of the municipality. The preparation of this strategy is an
emerging recommendation from Council’s Integrated Transport Plan, adopted earlier this
year.
The Integrated Transport Plan also makes a number of recommendations which have
implications for land use and development planning, such as a review of the Bicycle Plan
and Pedestrian Plan and to undertake Green Travel and Behaviour Change Plans. Key
elements of the Integrated Transport Plan should be incorporated into the planning
scheme as part of a future rewrite of the LPPF.
9.16 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The Municipal Strategic Statement (at Clause 21.08) has a strategy to:
Require social impact assessments (where a need has been identified) for
strategic redevelopment sites or larger residential developments to identify the
level of physical and social infrastructure required to be provided.
In practice, it is understood that Council’s Strategic Planning Department requires these
assessments to be undertaken as part of the Development Plan process for large-scale
residential rezoning amendments.
Council’s social planning staff are keen to see a broader application of social impact
assessment in decision-making. In particular, they would like to see Council seek a
social impact assessment for planning permit applications above a particular threshold.
It appears that the wording of the strategy above enables Council to request that a social
impact assessment be provided with larger residential applications.
However, a review of the clause could be undertaken to reveal whether a broader
application of the strategy is appropriate.
In addition, some Council staff identified that a broader social impact assessment is
required in order to satisfy the net community benefit test. It is understood that Council
staff would like to include a broader assessment of outcomes to be achieved by the
redevelopment of strategic sites, across a range of social, economic and environmental
considerations. In these terms, the assessment is not so much a social impact
assessment as a ‘net community benefit assessment’ in terms of the contribution a
94
proposal makes.
Council will need to carefully consider the scope of these requirements before
introducing such measures into the planning scheme. While a certain degree of
information may be required in order to satisfy whether a net community benefit has
been achieved (consistent with Clause 10.04 of the VPPs), Council should not seek
unduly onerous requirements for the redevelopment of some sites without a strategic
justification for the need.
9.17 NOISE
Councillors raised concerns about a perception that Council was lenient in dealing with
noise emissions, particularly from industrial premises.
There is limited policy guidance on noise control within the LPPF, although there is an
extensive framework provided at the State level.
A broader review of industrial areas should consider the need to monitor and control
noise emissions within these areas.
Concerns were also raised about expectations for residents living in mixed use and
commercial areas, who typically expect the same level of amenity in relation to noise as
within a residential zone.
It would be contrary to the proper operation of the commercial zones to enforce greater
restrictions on noise within these areas, which could have the adverse effect of limiting
commercial operations. It would be prudent for Council to ensure the community is
informed about reasonable expectations for noise disturbance within these areas.
9.18 AGED CARE
The Knox Housing Strategy and consultation as part of Knox@50 identify that one of the
main challenges for the municipality is providing appropriate housing and services to
cater to an aging population.
Feedback from Councillors indicated that there is a concern about the need to provide
flexible planning arrangements to facilitate the provision of aged care facilities and that
this flexibility is not afforded by the current planning system.
Amendment C131 includes new policy direction and guidance for aged care facilities in
the LPPF. It also seeks to exempt aged care facilities from some controls, such as height
95
limits, within some residential areas.
A periodic review of the effectiveness of the Housing Strategy, once implemented,
should examine whether the provisions are meeting the needs of aged care providers
and the population.
9.19 INFRASTRUCTURE
A number of internal Council departments made comments in relation to infrastructure
considerations.
In particular, they acknowledged that there was a need for additional planning controls in
order to address flooding related to overland flow from rain events. This was a key
concern for activity centres experiencing significant intensification and older suburbs of
the municipality. It was considered that updating the Special Building Overlay in
partnership with Melbourne Water could provide a solution to this issue. To this extent,
Council has committed to undertaking significant modelling work over the next 5 years.
This baseline data should be used in the future to inform whether any future changes are
required to flood mapping within the Knox Planning Scheme.
Officers also acknowledged the need to protect high value catchments from pollution
and run-off.
Moreover, officers considered that a general update of the MSS to reflect the latest
adopted approach to stormwater management within the municipality was required. To
some extent, this is being informed by the Knox Integrated Water Cycle Management
Strategy, which is currently in draft form. It will be necessary for the objectives and
strategies of this Strategy to be implemented into the planning scheme in the future.
9.20 REVERSE BUFFERS AROUND SITES WITH ADVERSE
AMENITY
Some Council staff also identified the need to better plan for interfaces between sites
with adverse amenity potential and sensitive (residential) development. In particular, it
was acknowledged that existing and former landfills and quarries within the municipality
could require sensitive consideration.
The Metro Waste and Resource Recovery Group are developing a suite of planning
tools in conjunction with councils to provide an appropriate sensitive buffer to manage
land use and development around these sites.
96
Subject to the outcomes of this pilot project, Council should investigate the opportunity to
implement similar policy and overlays within its scheme.
Other councils have adopted less formal measures and practices in considering buffers
around sites with adverse amenity potential. For instance, Brimbank City Council relies
on the Best Practice Environmental Management: Siting, Design, Operation, Operation
and Rehabilitation of Landfills (Landfill BPEM) produced by the EPA (Publication 788.2,
October 2014). The Landfill BPEM sets a recommendation separation distance between
sensitive uses and landfill to account for the vulnerability to landfill gas migration.
Equally, the EPA’s Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Air Emissions
(Publication 1518, March 2013) are a relevant consideration for separating sensitive
uses from a range of industrial activities with adverse amenity potential.
9.21 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, LAND, WATER AND
PLANNING
As part of this review, members of the project team met with members of the Planning
Statutory Services team within the Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP) to seek its views on the operation and effectiveness of the Knox
Planning Scheme.
DELWP acknowledged that the Knox Planning Scheme was strategically sound.
However, it had concerns that the LPPF was content heavy and overly repetitive. Its
advice was that any future rewrite should focus on keeping the LPPF as ‘lean’ as
possible, consistent with the direction sought by Making Local Policy Stronger.
In particular, DELWP advised that it would be prudent for Council to consider using the
full toolkit of the Victoria Planning Provisions available in rewriting its scheme. In this
regard, it acknowledged that there may be benefit in applying an Activity Centre Zone to
activity centres in order to rationalise Design and Development Overlays, Development
Plan Overlays and local policies.
Equally, it acknowledged that the Schedules in the new suite of residential zones could
be used to advance character and design considerations that would previously have
been applied through a Neighbourhood Character or Housing policy (for instance).
DELWP advised that Council should continue to follow the existing SPPF structure in
any rewrite of its LPPF, in order to ensure an easy translation to any future PPF, if
approved.
97
9.22 GAPS IN THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME
Based on the consultations undertaken as part of this review, it is apparent that there are
a range of ‘strategic gaps’ in the LPPF including:
The need for an Employment Strategy, which broadly encompasses the
development of activity centres, employment clusters and industrial areas. This
strategy needs to incorporate a review of the viability of existing industrial land;
The need for a Parking Strategy (arising from the Integrated Transport Plan
adopted by Council) to provide greater direction on car parking provision across
the municipality;
The need to provide stronger guidance on the development of strategic
redevelopment sites;
The need to investigate options for development contributions plans; and
The need to incorporate new policy direction in the Knox Planning Scheme for
emerging and recurrent issues, such as gaming, liquor licensing, culture and
heritage, advertising signs, ESD, liveability, native vegetation/biodiversity and
landscaping.
98
10. HOW THE KNOX PLANNING SCHEME IMPLEMENTS STATE PLANNING POLICY
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Demonstrate how the Municipal Strategic Statement (“the MSS”) implements State Planning Policy
10.1 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) is made up of the following sections:
Clause 11 – Settlement;
Clause 12 – Environmental and Landscape Values;
Clause 13 – Environmental Risks;
Clause 14 – Natural Resource Management;
Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage;
Clause 16 – Housing;
Clause 17 – Economic Development;
Clause 18 – Transport; and
Clause 19 – Infrastructure.
10.2 KNOX IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE PLANNING
POLICY FRAMEWORK
As discussed in Section 4, the SPPF is presently under review. The following analysis of
the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) has taken place based on the existing
structure and has not taken account of any anticipated changes. Overall, the analysis
reveals that while the content of the Knox Planning Scheme (including the MSS) is
generally consistent with the objectives and strategies contained within the SPPF, the
structure is significantly different.
There is a very strong correlation between some State and local themes. This is evident
with clauses relating to Housing (Clauses 16 and 21.05), Economic Development
(Clauses 17 and 21.07) and Infrastructure (Clauses 19 and 21.08). Equally, the LPPF
99
clearly expresses (albeit under different headlines) a relationship with State policy
regarding Environment and Landscape Values, Environmental Risks, Natural Resource
Management and Transport.
There is a less tangible relationship between the State objectives on Built Environment
and Heritage and Settlement, particularly in relation to local guidance for industrial and
rural areas.
This review finds that Council’s MSS appropriately implements the policy and strategies
contained within the SPPF. There was no evidence that content within the LPPF
diverged from, or was inconsistent with, State directions.
100
11. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE KNOX LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Demonstrate how the Municipal Strategic Statement (“the MSS”) implements State Planning Policy
11.1 THE ROLE OF THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT
Planning Practice Note No. 4 “Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement” (September
2013) discusses the role of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). The MSS
establishes the strategic framework for the municipality. It should also support and
implement the SPPF. The SPPF and MSS together provide the strategic basis for the
application of zones, overlays and particular provisions in the Knox Planning Scheme.
The MSS provides the broad local policy basis for making decisions under the planning
scheme. The MSS should be continually refined as the planning authority develops and
revises its strategic direction and as new issues arise in the municipality. The MSS must
be taken into account when preparing amendments to a planning scheme or making
decisions under a scheme.
11.2 CONTENT OF THE MUNICIPAL STRATEGIC STATEMENT
This section provides a discussion of the content of the MSS.
There are significant variations in the approaches that were adopted by councils across
Victoria when preparing their new format planning schemes, reflecting the uncertainty
about how to best accommodate the changes required by the planning reform process.
One of the characteristics of many schemes, however, was the inclusion of substantial
background information that has proved to be of little assistance in the administration of
the schemes. This trait is true of the MSS within the Knox Planning Scheme, with
significant background information provided under the Municipal Profile and within the
Overview section of each subsequent clause.
Many of the planning scheme reviews that have been, or are being undertaken, focused
on reducing the level of unnecessary and irrelevant information, thereby improving the
clarity and usability of the schemes. This is a key issue arising out of the State
Government’s SPPF review and a focus of the pilot PPF.
101
In terms of content in a general sense, it is clear that there is a high degree of repetition
throughout the LPPF and particularly within the MSS.
Each clause has a broad overview section under each theme and clause, which repeats
or expands on the contextual material in the Municipal Profile at Clause 21.01. As a
general observation, the Overviews to each clause are overly long, repetitive and do not
necessarily contribute to the administration of the Scheme. This material could be
rewritten into a more concise format and readily absorbed into Clause 21.01 to reduce
repetition and to streamline the MSS.
The MSS lacks a clear and consistent narrative. It is evident that the document has been
edited by many authors, with ad-hoc policy additions and revisions as Council has
amended its Scheme to respond to new policy implementation from time to time.
There is also a discernable absence within the MSS for significant strategic direction on
transport initiatives. As the Panel for Amendment C70 identified, this is a significant local
concern for the municipality and is deserving of its own clause within the MSS. Further
recommendations are made later in this chapter about matters not covered within the
MSS, that could be readily incorporated into existing sections.
Additionally, this review has identified the following specific comments in relation to each
clause.
CLAUSE 21.01 – MUNICIPAL PROFILE
Clause 21.01 provides an overview of the municipality. It discusses the City’s regional
context, its historical settlement pattern and community profile.
Much of the demographic data relied upon is from the 2006 Census, with other data
compiled from strategic studies which precede this date. There is an opportunity to
provide more contemporary data which reflects recent estimates on population and
community profile.
There is a lack of discussion about the City’s key natural and built environment attributes
at this clause.
CLAUSE 21.02 – KEY INFLUENCES
Clause 21.02 outlines the key influences on land use and development planning
throughout the municipality. The key influences are grouped under the key themes of
Urban Design, Housing, Environment, Economic Development and Infrastructure, which
102
inform the policy direction in the subsequent clauses of the MSS.
There are some limited instances where key influences and issues are identified at this
clause, but where policy support is not found in the corresponding clauses in the MSS.
For example, Clause 21.02-1 ‘Urban Design’ identifies “the need for urban design to
better respond to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and move away from a car based
urban form”, however, there is no corresponding objective or strategy at Clause 21.04
‘Urban Design’.
Although consistent with the requirements of Planning Practice Note 3, providing key
influences in a separate clause in this instance leads to a disjointed narrative. A future
rewrite of the MSS should consider whether it is more appropriate to adopt the Key
Influences for each theme under the header of the corresponding clause, so that it is
more closely aligned to the following objectives and strategies.
CLAUSE 21.03 – VISION AND STRATEGIC LAND USE FRAMEWORK
Clause 21.03 contains the vision from Knox 2025, sets out the corresponding strategic
objectives from the Knox Council Plan 2009-2013 and provides the overall Strategic
Land Use Framework for the municipality.
It is clear that this clause needs to be substantially updated to reflect the most recent
Council Plan, City Plan and Vision. It would also be appropriate for any rewriting of this
clause to include key elements of the Knox Integrated Strategy once it is adopted.
The Overall Strategic Plan provides a sound introduction to the overarching land use
composition of the municipality and spatially illustrates parklands, significant landscapes,
industrial areas, activity centres and the urban growth boundary.
CLAUSE 21.04 – URBAN DESIGN
Clause 21.04 relates to the design of built form within the municipality. The title of this
clause misrepresents its application and intention. It would be more appropriate to
rename it as a ‘Built Environment’ clause, given that it extends to areas such as
ecologically sustainable design and character considerations.
There is extensive and equal discussion in the Overview of the clause’s relevance to
urban form and ecologically sustainable design. The Overview is disjointed and poorly
drafted.
In terms of objectives and strategies to support its application, there is significantly more
103
policy direction provided for urban form, with only one objective relating to sustainable
design.
CLAUSE 21.05 – HOUSING
Clause 21.05 relates to housing across the municipality and is closely linked to the
corresponding local policy at Clause 22.10 ‘Housing’ and equally Clause 22.07
‘Neighbourhood Character’.
There are limited objectives and strategies for housing at this clause, with more detailed
policy guidance provided under the relevant local policies. The strong interrelationship
between these clauses suggests that there are opportunities to consolidate the local
policies into the MSS.
It is noted that Amendment C131 proposes to implement a substantially redrafted Clause
21.05 into the Knox Planning Scheme. To that extent, this review need only provide
limited feedback on the operation and effectiveness of this clause.
In terms of strategies for residential development at Clause 21.05-2, the MSS does not
provide appropriate definition to some terms, such as what constitutes “frequent and
reliable public transport” and where “dispersed locations” are. This is leading to
subjective assessment, particularly at VCAT, upon review of a Council determination.
There is limited strategic policy guidance for development within established areas, other
than to discourage development within the Dandenong Foothills. A more robust policy
framework is required to guide development in these areas, as they constitute the bulk of
the City’s residential areas.
Similarly, there is a lack of strategic guidance for the appropriate level and form of
development for the City’s strategic redevelopment sites.
In terms of further strategic work, the MSS identifies that Development Contributions
Plans are required for activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites and for the City
more broadly (for drainage infrastructure, open space facilities, community facilities,
transport infrastructure and public land). This work is in its early stages.
CLAUSE 21.06 – ENVIRONMENT
Clause 21.06 relates to natural environment and cultural heritage protection within the
City. It establishes the strategic justification for the Dandenong Foothills Policy and
protection of Sites of Biological Significance.
104
The Overview section to this clause is overly detailed and long (at 4 pages) and could be
judiciously reviewed.
Objective 5 and its related strategies relate to Council and Parks Victoria controlled land.
The way these strategies are currently expressed is inadequate to allow their
achievement through the planning system.
Objective 10 and its strategies seek to implement sustainable outcomes in the design of
built form. While it is of relevance to the Environment section, it is perhaps better housed
under Clause 21.04, which considers built form issues, including incorporation of ESD
measures.
CLAUSE 21.07 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Clause 21.07 describes Council’s strategic directions for economic development,
particularly in relation to industrial, business and retailing activity.
The Overview provides recognition that industrial land is underutilised and that there are
opportunities to redevelop these sites to enable them to contribute positively to the Knox
economy. However, the following objectives and strategies provide limited guidance and
direction to achieve this desired outcome. Of the strategies at this clause that do relate
to industrial areas, the statements are overly vague, other than to encourage site
consolidation.
This is a significant gap in the clause that should be addressed as part of a broader
review of the City’s industrial areas.
The policy context surrounding activity centres is generally well expressed. It establishes
a clear hierarchy of activity centres in the City and provides a clear framework for the
scale of land use and development anticipated for higher level centres. However, the
hierarchy and vision are inadequate at expressing opportunities for lower order centres.
There is also a need to update these policy directions to ensure that the language and
description of activity centres is consistent with State level policy and Plan Melbourne.
In terms of non-residential uses in residential areas, there was a view from statutory
planning staff that these objectives and strategies are not afforded significant weight at
the Tribunal upon review of a Council determination. The Knox Planning Scheme
previously included a local policy to cover this issue. It may be appropriate for Council to
reinstate the local policy at Clause 22. DELWP has indicated it is willing to consider this
approach, where there is evidence that the weight afforded by the MSS is insufficient.
105
The evidence of the Tribunal's decisions over the inter-review period certainly suggests
that less weight has been applied to the non-residential uses section at this clause than
when it was a stand-alone policy. It is recommended that Council consider adopting a
stand-alone policy or providing stronger language at Clause 21.07.
CLAUSE 21.08 – INFRASTRUCTURE
Clause 21.08 relates to infrastructure provision across the municipality.
In general terms, there are limited concerns with this clause. It was acknowledged by
some Council staff that social impact assessments should be provided for larger
developments and non-residential developments.
It appears that there are no barriers to the interpretation of this clause that would prohibit
Council requesting such information from permit applicants, where relevant.
It is also relevant that the reference to larger developments could be expanded to
include non-residential development as well.
CLAUSE 21.09 – REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Clause 21.09 lists a number of reference documents that have influenced the strategies
contained within the MSS. Council keeps a library of all reference documents in the
Scheme and most documents are available online.
Clause 21.09 incorporates most of the significant strategic work undertaken by Council.
However, it is clear that the list of documents is outdated, with many strategies and
policies now superseded.
The list of documents should be urgently reviewed as part of a broader review of the
LPPF. It follows that the content of updated policies and strategies should, in turn, be
distilled into the relevant objectives and strategies within the MSS.
CLAUSE 21.10 – MONITORING AND REVIEW
Clause 21.10 outlines the key performance indicators to measure the performance of the
MSS and Council plans. It also indicates that the planning scheme will be reviewed
every three years.
It is worth noting that the current statistical reporting measures in this clause do not all
appear to have been achieved and many have a low degree of relevance to measuring
the performance of the planning scheme.
106
Council has an extensive housing monitoring program being implemented as part of its
Housing Strategy and City Plan, which will be further updated following the approval of
Amendment C131 (Housing Strategy). Council has indicated that it will be seeking to
align future monitoring mechanisms under this clause with the housing monitoring
system it has in place and will introduce other relevant indicators which align with its
Knox Integrated Strategy and City Plan indicators.
The indicators and targets should be reviewed as part of a future rewrite of the LPPF.
There is significant benefit in the transparency afforded by the demonstration of a
commitment to monitor and review performance in Clause 21.10. Council should
continue to utilise this clause and ensure that its targets and indicators are relevant to
the performance and operation of the planning scheme. Once reasonable and measured
targets have been developed, Council should actively monitor and review these targets
to assess its performance.
11.3 CONTENT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES
This section provides a commentary on the Local Planning Policies contained at Clause
22 of the Knox Planning Scheme.
The Knox Planning Scheme is very ‘policy heavy’, with 8 local policies (and additional
local policies to be introduced by new amendments currently underway). In some
instances, it may be more appropriate to better utilise other tools within the Victoria
Planning Provisions to achieve the desired outcome. One notable example of this is
Clause 22.01 (Dandenong Foothills), which is discussed below.
The advice from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is that
councils should ensure that they are ‘using the full toolkit’ in implementing measures
through their planning scheme. Recent amendments to the zoning provisions allow
councils to better utilise the individual schedules to zones to achieve certain built form
outcomes.
In general terms, there is an inconsistent approach to the format and structure of local
policies. Most policies do not include Decision Guidelines. There is scope to provide a
more consistent structure to the policies throughout Clause 22.
The following specific comments arising from consultation and review are made about
individual local policies.
107
CLAUSE 22.01 – DANDENONG FOOTHILLS
Clause 22.01 applies to all land within the Dandenong Foothills. The policy sets out the
key policy direction for land use and development within the Foothills. It divides the
Foothills up into five distinct precincts, each expressing a different policy response.
The policy describes a number of preferred built form outcomes for each precinct, such
as landscaping requirements, building heights and siting and design of buildings. With
the implementation of the reformed residential zones, there is an opportunity to utilise
the variations to Clause 55 and maximum building height provisions contained in the
Schedules to achieve the desired built form outcomes.
Schedule 1 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone proposed as part of Amendment
C131 applies to all of the Dandenong Foothills. The Schedule includes some
landscaping and private open space requirements, but does not provide precinct-specific
requirements in accordance with this policy.
The policy also sets out application requirements for the provision of a site analysis plan
and design response. These requirements could be more appropriately located in the
corresponding DDO.
CLAUSE 22.02 – INDUSTRIAL AND RESTRICTED RETAIL SALES AREA DESIGN
Clause 22.02 applies to all land in an Industrial 1 Zone or Commercial 2 Zone (formerly
Business 3 and 4).
The policy applies a prescriptive level of built form control in relation to subdivision,
siting, landscaping, architectural quality and signage.
The overarching view from Council staff was that this policy can prohibit reasonable
development on corner lots, due to the siting requirements.
It is unclear whether these built form requirements work against other provisions in the
MSS (particularly at Clause 21.07), which seek to provide opportunities for underutilised
industrial land.
The policy drafting and mapping could be substantially improved. In terms of content, the
purpose of the policy is not altogether clear and the provisions appear somewhat
complex. It therefore needs review as part of the overall streamlining of the LPPF, in light
of the implementation of the new statewide commercial and industrial zones, and to
determine whether there are other ways to more effectively achieve some or all of the
108
policy provisions.
For instance, the application of a DDO may be able to facilitate the desired outcome
Council seeks. However, a broad brush approach of an overlay control to all of Council’s
Industrial 1 and Commercial 2 land will require significant strategic justification and a
demonstration that planning controls (as opposed to policy) are appropriate in all
circumstances.
A detailed review of this policy should be undertaken as part of a broader review of
industrial areas.
CLAUSE 22.04 – KNOX CENTRAL PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE
Clause 22.04 applies to all land within the Knox Central Principal Activity Centre.
It is understood that this policy is subject to a broader review that guides the future
development of Knox Central. This broader review of the policy context surrounding
Knox Central is supported as part of this planning scheme review process as it is noted
that Clause 22.04 is an interim policy only. Permanent controls therefore should be
developed as a priority prior to the expiry of this clause (30 June 2016).
Consistent with DELWP’s advice and other recommendations of this review, Council
should investigate all options available to it within the planning toolkit to implement
policies relating to Knox Central, and to streamline policy controls which apply across the
centre.
Given that this centre is the City’s highest order centre, the application of the Activity
Centre Zone (ACZ) may be appropriate in this location. The benefit of the ACZ is that all
land use and policy guidance is provided within the zone provision itself and not across a
local policy, a zone and one or more overlays.
CLAUSE 22.05 – BAYSWATER MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRE INCLUDING KEY
REDEVELOPMENT SITES
Clause 22.05 applies to all land within the Bayswater Major Activity Centre.
In broad terms, the policy provides land use guidance that complements DDO6, which
outlines the built form requirements for the centre. Both these provisions seek to
implement the Bayswater Structure Plan.
The Structure Plan that underpins the controls was adopted in 2005. It is now ten years
109
old and warrants review to better inform future land use and development within the
centre.
There are also opportunities to distill the requirements of this policy into Clause 21.07
and DDO6, to reduce the density and layering of control for the centre. A similar
recommendation was made by the Panel that considered the Boronia Structure Plan
Amendment (Amendment C62).
There are a number of other strategic planning issues that are influencing the
development of the Bayswater Activity Centre. These include:
The recent implementation of the new commercial and industrial zones and
determining whether the standard translation of new zones still effectively
implements the recommendations of the Structure Plan;
The monitoring of the effectiveness of new residential zones that are to be
implemented under Amendment C131;
The completion (and implementation into the planning scheme) of the Bayswater
Triangle Master Plan 2011;
Strategic work currently underway in conjunction with Maroondah City Council
and the Shire of Yarra Ranges in relation to the Bayswater/Bayswater
North/Kilsyth Employment Precinct project. This project will potentially adopt a
regional approach with consistent planning controls across this large employment
precinct; and
The potential land use and development impacts of proposed undergrounding of
railway lines at both Mountain Highway and Scoresby Road.
Any review of Clause 22.05 should be undertaken with an understanding of these
broader structural issues and all other planning controls relating to Bayswater (including
the MSS and DDO6).
CLAUSE 22.06 – BORONIA MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRE LOCAL POLICY
Clause 22.06 applies to all land within the Boronia Major Activity Centre.
The policy provides land use guidance that complements DDO7, which outlines the built
form requirements for the centre. Both these provisions seek to implement the Boronia
Structure Plan.
110
The Structure Plan was adopted in 2006 and it was a recommendation of the Panel for
Amendment C62 that Council review the Structure Plan as part of its next planning
scheme review (this review). Council decided to defer a review of the Structure Plan until
2016, in order to assess the impact of the reformed residential zones to be implemented
by Amendment C131. It would be prudent for Council to review the Structure Plan in light
of the emerging built form on the ground to ensure that it is achieving the desired
outcomes. This may lead to changes to the corresponding controls that implement the
Structure Plan’s vision.
There are opportunities to distill the requirements of this policy into Clause 21.07 and
DDO7, to reduce the density and layering of control for the centre and was
recommended by the Panel that considered Amendment C62.
The policy should be reviewed in the context of the implementation of the new
commercial and industrial zones, to determine whether the zones are still achieving the
policy objectives. Council has committed to review the Boronia Structure Plan in 2016-
2017, with a particular emphasis on allowing for a genuine assessment of the
effectiveness of the Boronia-specific and broader housing planning controls. Such a
review would also include a review of Clause 22.06 and other planning controls relating
to the Boronia Activity Centre (such as the MSS and DDO7).
CLAUSE 22.07 – NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER
Clause 22.07 applies to all land within the City’s residential areas that are not subject to
activity centre structure plans (such as Boronia and Bayswater).
This policy is to be substantially revised and merged with the Housing Policy at Clause
22.10 as part of Amendment C131, which has been submitted to the Minister for
approval.
In light of this, this review needs to make no comments on the operation or effectiveness
of this clause.
CLAUSE 22.08 – SCORESBY-ROWVILLE EMPLOYMENT PRECINCT
Clause 22.08 applies to all land zoned Commercial 2 (formerly Business 3), Public Use
and Public Park and Recreation Zone within the Scoresby-Rowville Employment
Precinct.
This review and consultation identified that the local policy is generally well written and
strategically sound. There is, however, a need to review the content of the policy in light
111
of the changes to the commercial zones, to ensure that the policy is consistent with the
new zoning provisions.
CLAUSE 22.10 – HOUSING
Clause 22.07 applies to all applications for residential use and development within the
urban growth boundary.
This policy is to be substantially revised and merged with the Neighbourhood Character
Policy at Clause 22.07 as part of Amendment C131, which has been submitted to the
Minister for approval.
In light of this, this review needs to make no comments on the operation or effectiveness
of this clause.
11.4 RECOMMENDED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
STRUCTURE
There are opportunities to review the structure of the LPPF to ensure a more streamlined
approach to the MSS and a stronger interrelationship between local policies and the
MSS.
Broadly, Council’s LPPF appropriately implements the policy directions at the SPPF, but
does not coherently follow the structure of the SPPF. Given that the SPPF Review has
identified a preferred future approach to the integration of State, regional and local policy
in a combined Planning Policy Framework, it is appropriate to consider whether the
LPPF could be better structured following the existing clauses within the SPPF. This
approach would provide better clarity as to the overarching direction of local policy and
its consistency with State policy. This approach is supported and recommended by
DELWP. The advantage of this approach is that the local content of the scheme can be
easily translated into the relevant themes of any future PPF with minimal resource
burden to Council.
It is the view of the authors of this report that this is the preferred approach for the future
structure of the LPPF. It ensures that there is a logical structure which clearly provides
local policy in the context of broader State policy within the SPPF. However, the shortfall
of this approach is that there are some clauses within the SPPF which bear no relevance
to the local context of the City of Knox, and other areas where it is recognised that the
SPPF does not provide a sufficient framework to ‘localise’ the policy statements.
112
That said, the authors consider that a streamlined LPPF that is consistent with the
structure of the SPPF would represent a ‘best practice’ approach to local policy
development and implementation.
Alternatively, the development of the Knox Integrated Strategy may provide an
appropriate benchmark for structuring the content of the LPPF. This may also better
align the LPPF with Council’s vision and its broader strategic policies and documents.6
Adopting such an approach will still require a judicious logic to structuring the content, to
ensure that it still actively implements and relates to the overarching direction of the
SPPF.
Such an approach will need to carefully consider the structural aspects of the future
LPPF to ensure that it is articulated in a consistent and concise narrative that is not
overly repetitive and is clear in its implementation of State policy. The disadvantage of
this approach is that decision-makers such as VCAT may be less familiar with the
architecture of the Scheme and this may result in incorrect interpretations of the policy
narrative. Council’s VCAT advocates would need to be aware of this potential and
therefore strongly versed in the narrative of the LPPF and the Knox Integrated Strategy
which guided its development.
Nevertheless, whichever approach Council chooses to adopt, it should consider the
opportunities to reduce the layering and repetition within the existing LPPF.
PRINCIPLES IN LPPF STRUCTURE
Regardless of the structure that Council chooses, it will be necessary that the rewrite
and restructuring of the LPPF adheres to best practice principles.
These principles include:
Providing a clear and consistent narrative in plain English;
Keeping MSS clauses and LPPs as concise as possible, without undermining the
intent of policy;
Ensuring that terms that have a bearing on the exercise of discretion are clearly
defined. For instance, clearly articulating what constitutes a ‘substantial tree’;
Avoiding repetition throughout the MSS;
6 The consultant team has not been provided with a copy of this Strategy at the time of writing this report.
113
Avoiding repetition between MSS clauses and LPPs;
Ensuring that each strategy set out in the MSS appropriately implements the
objective it relates to;
Limiting the use of LPPs through a broader application of zone and overlay
controls, which can provide greater certainty in application, or by including
provisions within the MSS;
Utilising maps to convey spatial information that is relevant to policy objectives
and strategies. However, care must be taken to ensure that the maps are clear
and readable, with different categories easily distinguishable; and
Clearly articulating where a particular policy applies.
11.5 OTHER COMMENTS - GAPS
Based on consultation, the content within the MSS could benefit by incorporating new
strategic directions for the following areas which currently lack sufficient guidance:
Rural areas;
Industrial areas;
Non-residential uses in residential areas;
Integrated transport;
Advertising signage; and
Environmentally Sustainable Design.
11.6 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE LPPF
The content of the Knox LPPF has been subject to some significant amendments over
the inter-review period. Structurally, the MSS has remained largely the same, while new
local policies have been introduced at Clauses 22.05 and 22.06. It will change even
more so if Amendment C131 is approved.
Notably, the MSS structure is quite different to current State government ‘best practice’.
The local content of the Knox Planning Scheme is dense, layered and overly rigorous. It
is clear that it has been subject to multiple ad-hoc amendments written by different
114
authors. There is a significant amount of background material contained in the Overview
section to each clause that bears little relevance to the subsequent clause and the
exercise of discretion by officers. A judicious review of the LPPF should be undertaken
to rationalise all unnecessary content.
This review recommends that the Local Planning Policy Framework be closely audited
and substantially rewritten, with the primary aim to adopt a concise LPPF that sets out a
clear and consistent narrative. Additionally, this rewrite should ensure that the Council
incorporates all strategic work relevant to land use and development decisions
undertaken in the inter-review period that is yet to be incorporated into the Scheme.
Recommendation:
Review and rewrite the Local Planning Policy Framework. This rewrite should adopt
a more concise LPPF that sets out a clear and consistent narrative. It is the
recommendation of the authors of this report that the rewrite should ensure that the
structure of the LPPF aligns closely with current SPPF structure.
The review should consider opportunities to rationalise local polices into the MSS and
other tools within the VPPs, such as zone and overlay schedules, where relevant.
The rewrite should also acknowledge existing gaps within the planning scheme and
provide for new strategic guidance in relation to (inter alia):
Rural Areas;
Industrial Areas;
Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas;
Integrated transport;
Advertising signs; and
Environmentally Sustainable Design.
115
12. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ZONES AND SCHEDULES
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Audit the application and performance of the Zones in the scheme; and investigate whether or not the Schedules in the scheme have been appropriately applied.
12.1 AUDIT OF ZONES AND SCHEDULES
There are a total of 18 zones in the Knox Planning Scheme as follows:
Low Density Residential;
Mixed Use;
General Residential;
Industrial 1;
Commercial 1;
Commercial 2 (no schedule);
Rural Living;
Green Wedge;
Rural Conservation;
Farming;
Public Use;
Public Park and Recreation;
Public Conservation and Resource;
Road;
Special Use;
Comprehensive Development;
Urban Floodway; and
Priority Development.
With the exception of the Commercial 2 Zone and the Road Zone, all of these zones
have attached schedules which vary in detail and complexity.
In the suite of Mixed Use, Low Density Residential, Industrial and Commercial Zones,
the schedules are “default”, with no conditional or variation provisions specified. In terms
of the Residential Zones, the current General Residential Zone contains two schedules
which carry over the Clause 54 and 55 variations that were previously within the
Residential 1 and Residential 3 Zone schedules. There are a range of Schedules to the
116
Rural Living, Rural Conservation and Farming zones, which each specify a minimum
subdivision area and permit requirements for dwellings.
At the more complex end, there are uniquely tailored schedules for the Special Use Zone
(for private education, community and leisure facilities, the terminal station and quarries),
the Comprehensive Development Zone (for the Waterford Valley Comprehensive
Development Plan Area) and the Priority Development Zone (for Knox Central).
Over the inter-review period, the State Government has announced and implemented a
package of new and reformed zones, which affect the Residential, Commercial,
Industrial and Rural suite of zones. These new zones have been introduced into the
Knox Planning Scheme through Amendments VC100 (Low Density Residential,
Commercial and Industrial Zones) and VC103 (Rural zones) in July 2013.
This review has largely considered the ordinances associated with each zone. While
outside of the scope of this review, a limited consideration of mapping has also been
undertaken.
12.2 GENERAL COMMENTS
Feedback from officers, community representatives, agencies and stakeholders has
revealed that while the zone selection remains generally appropriate, the zone
schedules typically need review. In addition, there may be a need to select some new
zones to implement further strategic work completed by Council.
12.3 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ARISING FROM REVIEW AND
CONSULTATIONS
Specific issues to emerge from consultation regarding the zones and alternative zone
options are as follows.
RESIDENTIAL SUITE
The General Residential Zone was recently applied to all land formerly zoned
Residential 1, 2 and 3. The Zone applies differing schedules to land formerly
zoned Residential 1 and Residential 3 to provide a direct translation from the
former zone requirements. For instance, the General Residential Zone –
Schedule 2, maintains the same 9 metre mandatory height requirement and
private open space variations as the former Residential 3 Zone.
Council is seeking to introduce the full suite of reformed residential zones to
117
urban areas via Amendment C131 to the Knox Planning Scheme. The
Amendment relies on the recently adopted Knox Housing Strategy 2015 to
govern the appropriate zone selection for the City’s residential areas. The
Amendment was considered by an Independent Panel in September 2014 and
has since been adopted by Council (with some changes) and sent to the Minister
for approval.
It would be premature to comment on the application of the reformed residential
zones at this stage. However, this review recommends that Council monitor the
application of the zones periodically to assess performance against the Housing
Strategy and other considerations. This recommendation should be incorporated
into the monitoring and review section of the MSS.
The Low Density Residential Zone is applied largely to land on the higher ridges
of the Dandenong Foothills and within a discrete pocket of land in Rowville. The
Schedule to the zone is blank. Feedback from Council indicates that this zone is
generally performing well and there is no need to introduce any variations to the
Schedule. Council should continue to monitor whether there is a need to
introduce variations to the Schedule for the minimum subdivision area, given that
amendments to this zone facilitate a lower lot size where sewerage is available.
The Mixed Use Zone is applied extensively to parts of Boronia and Ferntree Gully
and other discrete areas of the municipality as a ‘buffer’ between the commercial
core of centres and residential land. The Schedule to this zone is blank. There
are opportunities to review this Schedule to optimise built form outcomes.
INDUSTRIAL SUITE
The Minister for Planning introduced three modified industrial zones in the inter-
review period (July 2013).
The Industrial 1 Zone was applied to existing industrial areas prior to and at the
time of the new format planning schemes in 1999. Overall, Council has relied on
the Industrial 1 Zone and has not used the Industrial 3 Zone where industrial land
abuts more sensitive uses, such as residential land. Council should consider the
appropriateness of adopting the Industrial 3 Zone for land in these more sensitive
locations.
Equally, it is apparent that there are several ageing industrial areas in the City
where heavy industrial activity is declining. A broad assessment of existing
118
activity could determine whether it is more appropriate to encourage commercial
or residential redevelopment in some areas.
The size and extent of the City’s industrial areas, and the challenges mentioned
above, warrant further strategic study and review. We recommend that Council
undertake an Industrial Land Review as a priority. Such a review should provide
an analysis on the adequacy of the industrial zones to deal with the current
economic changes of land use objectives. This analysis would provide the
framework for appropriate policy to guide the longer term direction for the City’s
industrial areas.
The Schedule to the Industrial 1 Zone currently does not specify a floor space
restriction for office development. A broad review of industrial land should
consider whether a restriction is required to this schedule.
COMMERCIAL SUITE
The Minister introduced two modified commercial zones (the Commercial 1 and
Commercial 2 zones) to replace the five existing business zones in July 2013.
Council had previously applied the Business 1, 2, 3 and 4 Zones across its
commercial areas. The previous differentiation between these zones allowed
Council to achieve distinct outcomes in each area. Council also utilised floor
space limitations within the zone header provisions and schedules to the former
business zones to control certain land uses in some areas.
It is not yet clear whether the changes to the commercial zones are leading to
adverse consequences within commercial areas.
The direct translation of the zones to the new commercial zones should be
reviewed to ensure that the zones are fulfilling the purpose Council requires.
Further structure planning or additional controls may be required in the future to
monitor use and development in these areas.
In particular, Council is of the view that some land formerly within the Business 5
Zone (now Commercial 1) may more be more appropriate candidates for
incorporation into the Mixed Use Zone or Commercial 2 Zone.
RURAL SUITE
The Knox Planning Scheme applies the Rural Living, Green Wedge (with two
schedules), Rural Conservation (with two schedules) and Farming Zones across
119
discrete pockets of the municipality, mostly outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
The Farming Zone is applied to two sections of land within the Dandenong Creek
Valley. Council’s intention is to maintain this zoning structure until the land is
acquired by Parks Victoria.
Rural Conservation Zone – Schedule 1 is applied to a discrete pocket of land in
the Basin, adjacent to the Dandenong Ranges National Park. The schedule
specifies a minimum subdivision area of 4 hectares. The subdivision pattern in
some areas (such as adjacent to Milleara Street and along Doongalla Road) is
already significantly more intense than the value specified in the Schedule.
Rural Conservation Zone – Schedule 2 and Green Wedge Zone – Schedule 1
are applied to a section of Lysterfield. Subdivision pattern on the ground
generally reflects the values set in the scheme.
Green Wedge Zone – Schedule 2 is applied to various locations throughout the
green wedge sections of the municipality, largely in Lysterfield, Lysterfield South
and The Basin.
The Rural Living Zone is applied in disparate locations throughout the
municipality. It is located among Public Park and Recreation Zone land in the
Dandenong Creek Valley and is also used in parts of Lysterfield and adjacent to
Eastlink. There are some isolated pockets of the RLZ within urban contexts, such
as where it abuts both the General Residential and Comprehensive Development
Zone. It is unclear why this zone is applied within the Urban Growth Boundary.
The application of this zone should be reviewed. Some of this land is also future
public land with a Public Acquisition Overlay for Parks Victoria, for land within the
Dandenong Creek Valley.
In broad terms, there is a lack of strategic justification and guidance for
appropriate land use activities and development for rural areas within the LPPF.
In light of this, and reforms to the rural zones as a result of Amendment VC103,
there are opportunities to conduct a broad review of the City’s rural areas and, in
turn, the application of the rural zones.
Such a review should investigate whether any changes are required to the
Schedules to ensure that they remain relevant in their guidance for development
in rural areas.
120
PUBLIC USE / RECREATION / RESOURCE SUITE
The Public Use Zones apply to various areas across the municipality. The
Schedule specifies an advertising sign category for Stamford Park Homestead.
Consultation from Council suggests that the application and extent of this zone
remains appropriate. There is no appetite for Council to adopt a permissive
position on advertising signage on Council land. Signage is otherwise managed
by tenancy agreements and an “under-the-counter” policy. There is scope for a
new Advertising Signs local policy to incorporate direction for signage on public
land.
The Public Park and Recreation Zone and Public Conservation and Resource
Zone are applied to various areas across the municipality. The Schedules to
these zones are blank. There is no pressing concern from Council or other
authorities to alter these zones or schedules.
SPECIAL USE SUITE
Schedule 1 to the Special Use Zone is applied to a range of private community,
sporting, education and religious facilities.. There is evidence of inconsistency in
both the mapping and application of this zone. For instance, St Joseph’s School
in Ferntree Gully is within the SUZ1, while the Knox School on Burwood Highway
retains its underlying residential zoning. If the Council is to adopt best practice in
the application of this control, it is appropriate for this zone to be applied
consistently to all facilities as intended. In turn, there is scope to review whether it
is appropriate to rezone private school facilities and the like that currently retain
their underlying residential zoning.
Schedule 2 relates to Earth and Energy Resources and relates to the two
quarrying sites within the municipality – one in Lysterfield and one within the
Dandenong Creek Valley. It is understood that development may take place in
the future for the latter quarry. There are generally no concerns with the
application of this zone to the Lysterfield Quarry.
Schedule 3 relates to the terminal station on the corner of Stud Road and
Wellington Road. There were no issues raised in respect of the application of this
control throughout consultation for this review.
121
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT SUITE
Schedule 1 to the Comprehensive Development Zone is applied to approximately
160 hectares of land known as the Waterford Valley residential estate and golf
course. The development is staged and it is understood that there are still several
stages where works are yet to commence. Statutory planning staff considered
this to be a ‘difficult control, which contained some unusual language’. The
control could benefit from some careful redrafting and should be subject to a
detailed review, which may result in a reduction in permit triggers for minor
buildings and works. Alternatively, there may be scope to investigate rezoning
land and applying a Development Plan Overlay to the area still to be developed.
PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT SUITE
Schedule 1 to the Priority Development Zone applies to two precincts within the
Knox Central Activity Centre. The view from Council during the consultation
period was that the development anticipated by this control has not occurred to
date. It is understood that this control will be reviewed as part of a broader review
of Knox Central, which has already commenced.
The previous State government had indicated that it would remove the Priority
Development Zone from the Victoria Planning Provisions. It is uncertain whether
the current government intends to continue with this initiative.
12.4 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE ZONES AND
SCHEDULES
The application of the rural and industrial zones requires significant review and further
strategic work to justify their application and guide future land use and development
activities.
All other zones should be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure that they are
performing as expected. In particular, close monitoring of the reformed residential zones
(once implemented), commercial, industrial and rural zones will be required to ensure
that State government changes to these zones over the inter-review period are not
leading to adverse consequences.
122
Recommendation:
Review all Zone selections in light of modifications to the rural, commercial and
industrial zones (with the exception of the residential zones).
Review the Comprehensive Development Zone to consider whether there are
opportunities for red tape reduction.
Rationalise all Zone schedules and delete any redundant clauses, as required
(with the exception of the residential zones).
Monitor the application of the residential zones across the municipality following
the gazettal of Amendment C131.
123
13. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Audit the application and performance of the Overlays in the scheme; and investigate whether or not the Schedules in the scheme have been appropriately applied.
13.1 AUDIT OF OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES
There are a total of 14 overlays in the Knox Planning Scheme as follows:
Environmental Significance;
Vegetation Protection;
Significant Landscape;
Heritage;
Design and Development;
Development Plan;
Floodway;
Land Subject to Inundation;
Special Building;
Bushfire Management;
Public Acquisition;
Environmental Audit;
Road Closure; and
Restructure.
With the exception of the Bushfire Management, Road Closure and Environmental Audit
Overlays, all of these overlays have at least one schedule, which vary in requirements
and complexity.
This review has largely considered the ordinances associated with each overlay. While
outside of the scope of this review, a limited consideration of mapping has also been
undertaken.
124
13.2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS ARISING FROM REVIEW AND
CONSULTATIONS
A key focus of this review has been an examination of opportunities to reduce ‘red tape’
within the Knox Planning Scheme. In general terms, this task has focused on a detailed
analysis of permit triggers within overlay controls, to determine where permits are
triggered and whether there are any opportunities to limit the scope of permit triggers,
whilst still maintaining the intent of the control. The following comments on each control
take this consideration into account.
A brief overview of the overlays and schedules arising from the consultations is as
follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY (ESO)
This overlay has three schedules as follows:
Schedule 1 – Sites of Biological Significance (Reservoir Crescent, Rowville);
Schedule 2 – Sites of Biological Significance; and
Schedule 3 – Dandenong Ranges Buffer.
Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay (Sites of Biological Significance
(Reservoir Crescent, Rowville) is a site-specific control which is applied to land zoned
Public Park and Recreation Zone in Rowville. There were no issues identified with the
application of this control or its provisions.
Schedule 2 relates to the Sites of Biological Significance throughout the municipality
and was implemented by Amendment C49.
Schedule 3 is applied to a large section of the municipality within the Foothills.
Consultation throughout the review raised similar concerns between the structure and
application of ESO2 and ESO3. These are as follows:
The permit triggers are generally appropriate, although it was noted that there
was some conflict between permit triggers under these Schedules and VPO
controls.
The application requirements are very specific and onerous. Council will often
waive the application requirements and rely on its own resources (on-staff
125
arborists) to provide the detail necessary to assess the application. There is
scope to review the extent of these requirements in the future.
The Schedules refer to the old net gain approach to native vegetation removal
and this is inconsistent with current State policy. Officers indicated they will need
to review the current net gain approach outlined in the ESO3, to ensure it is
consistent with State policy and still achieves local policy intent.
In relation to ESO3, there is confusion over the exemption language for
subdivision applications and whether a permit is triggered. This exemption should
be clarified, as the intent is to exempt subdivision if there is an approved
development permit and development has been undertaken in accordance with
that permit.
VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY (VPO)
This overlay has four schedules as follows:
Schedule 1 – Remnant Vegetation with a High Degree of Naturalness;
Schedule 2 – Significant Exotic and Non Indigenous Native Trees;
Schedule 3 – Remnant Overstorey Vegetation; and
Schedule 4 – Canopy Tree Protection
Schedule 1 is applied broadly across the municipality, including large areas of land
within the Public Park and Recreation Zone, within the Dandenong Creek Valley and
Dandenong Valley Parklands. The Schedule has not been altered since the last planning
scheme review. The last review commented that the schedule was generally well written
and established a good hierarchy of values.
The Schedule was originally proposed to be deleted as part of Amendment C49 (Sites of
Biological Significance), but was ultimately retained to allow Council to review whether
these areas should retain some form of vegetation control for landscape character
reasons or to protect individually significant trees. The Panel also made a
recommendation to this effect. This review recommends that an active and detailed
review be undertaken for vegetation in areas affected by this control.
The comments from the 2014 review also highlighted that:
The permit exemptions could be expanded to only trigger vegetation removal of a
126
certain height or size, as Council only seeks to protect large canopy trees.
The ecological objectives may need careful review or deletion.
The decision guidelines and permit exemptions should be streamlined to be
consistent with the Sites of Biological Significance controls.
Schedule 2 relates to individual sites across the municipalities and controls both native
and exotic vegetation in limited circumstances. It is an old control that pre-dates new
format planning schemes. The advice from internal consultation is that this overlay
needs considerable review. The major issues identified were:
The control refers to Melway references, rather than site references. There is
evidence that the mapping of the overlay itself does not always correlate with the
specific tree that is protected by the Overlay.
Many of the trees protected are weeds and were placed on the VPO by public
nomination.
While some minor amendments to the Schedule have improved its operation, Council
research indicates that there are several deficiencies and inconsistencies in the
operation of the control in relation to the way it is mapped and the operation of the permit
trigger where mapping is wrong.
The overarching view was that this control could be potentially rationalised and removed
from the Scheme altogether. The 2010 Planning Scheme Review suggested that such a
rationalisation shouldn’t occur as VPO2 is the only control that protects exotic vegetation
that contributes to the ‘green and leafy image’ of the municipality desired by the MSS.
We recommend that an intensive audit of this control be undertaken to examine whether
the control is performing its intended purpose, is appropriately mapped and contributes
to the green and leafy image of the City. This review should fundamentally re-examine
the purpose of the control, its mapping and whether the desired outcome is being
achieved.
Schedule 3 applies to large areas on the northern border of the municipality (along the
Dandenong Creek), Boronia, Knoxfield and land east of Dorset Road, south of Mountain
Highway. The control has not been amended since the last Planning Scheme Review in
2010. It protects significant public amenity trees and is the clearest control within the
Scheme that seeks the retention of non-native vegetation that contributes to the green
127
and leafy image of Knox.
The Schedule was originally proposed to be deleted as part of Amendment C49 (Sites of
Biological Significance), but was ultimately retained to allow Council to review whether
these areas should retain some form of vegetation control for landscape character
reasons or to protect individually significant trees. The Panel also made a
recommendation to this effect. This review recommends that an active and detailed
review be undertaken for vegetation in areas affected by this control.
Consultation identified that the control is generally working well. The following minor
issues were identified as part of this review:
The objectives should be updated to refer to the visual and public amenity aspect
of the vegetation.
The exemption for lopping vegetation should be expanded where vegetation is
overhanging a dwelling.
The decision guidelines need to be expanded to consider the contribution that the
vegetation makes to character.
The decision guidelines and permit exemptions should be streamlined to be
consistent with the Sites of Biological Significance controls.
Schedule 4 relates to canopy tree protection and is applied across large areas of
Boronia and Knoxfield. The Council officers feel that the control has a high degree of
community support. The following minor issues were identified as part of this review:
The reference to the former State Governent framework for native vegetation
removal needs to be deleted from the control.
The permit exemption for weeds proclaimed under the Catchment and Land
Protection Act 1994 should be deleted.
Table 2 could be deleted.
128
SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE OVERLAY (SLO)
This overlay has six schedules as follows:
Schedule 1 – Lysterfield Valley and Lysterfield Hills Rural Landscape;
Schedule 2 – Dandenong Foothills: Foothills Backdrop and Ridgeline Area;
Schedule 3 – Dandenong Foothills: Lower Slope and Valley Area;
Schedule 4 - The Basin Rural Landscape;
Schedule 5 – Lysterfield Urban/Rural Transition and Lysterfield Valley
Contributory Area; and
Schedule 6 – Dandenong Foothills – Former Ferntree Gully Quarry.
Schedule 1 is applied to some land within Lysterfield that is within the Green Wedge or
Rural Conservation Zone, as well as land to the east of Lysterfield Quarry. The control
has not been altered since the last planning scheme review. This review has identified
the following issues:
Permit triggers for minor buildings and works and the construction of fences are
problematic. There are also issues with the lack of correlation between permit
triggers in SLO1 and the corresponding DDO. Feedback from Council staff
suggested that the permit exemptions in SLO3 could be appropriately applied to
SLO1.
The decision guidelines relating to the materials and finishes of buildings are
subjective and need to be broadened to allow muted tones. Alternatively, the
decision guidelines on built form could be rationalised from the SLO and applied
to the corresponding DDO.
Schedule 2 relates to areas of Ferntree Gully around the railway station and south of
Burwood Highway.
Schedule 3 relates to areas of Ferntree Gully, south of Burwood Highway and east of
Dorset Road.
The feedback from the consultation program suggested that both SLO2 and SLO3 are
working well. However, similar issues were raised in relation to built form decision
guidelines as were found with SLO1.
129
Schedule 4 applies to land within The Basin. The overarching view from consultation is
that this control is working well. It is a relatively contained control that does not trigger a
large number of permits.
Schedule 5 relates to land in Lysterfield within the Dandenong Foothills. Consultation
confirmed that this Schedule needs some minor alterations to provide better clarity of
expression. Consultation also identified:
The permit exemption for dwellings where external materials were in non-
reflective materials of green or brown is problematic and needs clarification.
Fencing exemptions could be reviewed to be less stringent for side and rear
fencing behind the line of the dwelling.
Schedule 6 is a site-specific control that relates to the former Ferntree Gully Quarry,
located on the northern side of the railway line, between Ferntree Gully and Upper
Ferntree Gully. Most of the development within this quarry has been constructed and
Council should consider whether this control serves an ongoing maintenance function or
whether it can be rationalised from the planning scheme.
HERITAGE OVERLAY (HO)
The Heritage Overlay has one schedule that lists approximately 55 sites, which vary
from private dwellings to institutional buildings to parks. The Schedule reflects a heritage
study dating back to 1993. There were no issues identified with this control as part of
this review, aside from the recommendation that Council required a broader heritage
study to identify other potential sites of heritage significance. Such a review should also
consider the need to review and update guidance provided by the 1993 study.
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (DDO)
This overlay has 8 schedules as follows:
Schedule 1 – Dandenong Foothills: Foothills Backdrop and Ridgeline Area;
Schedule 2 – Dandenong Foothills: Lower Slope and Valley Area;
Schedule 3 – Lysterfield Urban/Rural Transition and Lysterfield Valley Transition
Area;
Schedule 4 – Former Ferntree Gully Quarry;
130
Schedule 5 – Dandenong Foothills: Foothills Backdrop and Ridgeline Central
Area;
Schedule 6 – Bayswater Major Activity Centre;
Schedule 7 – Boronia Structure Plan Area; and
Schedule 8 – Ferntree Gully Village Activity Centre.
Schedules 1-4 all relate to land within the Dandenong Foothills. The DDO controls
correspond to the SLOs of the same name. There was a broad view among the project
team that the requirements and permit triggers for development under the DDO should
relate to similar triggers and requirements in the corresponding SLO. A review of these
schedules should also have regard to the zone schedules proposed by Amendment
C131 (if approved) for consistency and clarity.
Schedule 1 relates to land in Boronia and Ferntree Gully, east of Dorset Road. This
control is generally working effectively, with the subdivision controls in particular viewed
as necessary and serving an ongoing role and function in maintaining the character of
the Foothills.
Schedule 2 relates to land in areas of Boronia, Ferntree Gully and Lysterfield. As with
DDO1, it contains a minimum lot size control. Consultation suggested that:
While this control is achieving the subdivision pattern anticipated, there is
evidence (as explored in Chapter 4) that VCAT is approving development permits
for second dwellings that do not meet the minimum lot size.
The language in the control needs to be tightened to discourage (or prohibit)
second dwellings that do not meet the minimum subdivision area.
Schedule 3 relates to land in Lysterfield, within the Dandenong Foothills. There are no
known issues with this control, beyond the general comments of the Foothills DDOs
identified above.
Schedule 4 affects land known as the Former Ferntree Gully Quarry. Consultation
suggested that this control and SLO6 may be able to be rationalised or deleted, as the
development is complete and built form and landscaping within the estate are generally
controlled by Section 173 agreements.
Schedule 5 relates to land in Ferntree Gully, east of Dorset Road, within the Foothills.
131
There are no known issues with this control, beyond the general comments of the
Foothills DDOs identified above.
Schedule 6 affects land within the Bayswater Activity Centre. The control was generally
identified as appropriate in guiding development within the centre. Consultation and
research identified the following issues:
The expression of some terms (such as ‘design of exceptional quality’) is poor
and open to interpretation. This term should be defined within the control to
reduce confusion. Alternatively, the language should be reworded to express
desired outcomes in plain language.
The duplicity in controls, with sections in the MSS, a local policy, zone and
overlay control all providing guidance on the Activity Centre. There may be scope
to rationalise the controls and consolidate them into the Activity Centre Zone.
Schedule 7 relates to land within the Boronia Activity Centre. The control was
introduced in the inter-review period by Amendment C62 and revised by Amendment
C95. Further amendments to the schedule are proposed to be introduced by
Amendment C133, which was considered by an Independent Panel in September 2014,
which did not indicate any issues with the proposed amendments to the Schedule.
Consultation and research identified the following issues:
The expression of some terms (such as ‘outstanding architectural quality’) is
poor, open to interpretation and is leading to undesirable outcomes.
The duplicity in controls, with sections in the MSS, a local policy, zone and
overlay control all providing guidance on the Activity Centre. There may be scope
to rationalise the controls and consolidate them into the Activity Centre Zone.
Additionally, the control explains required design standards for three areas of the
activity centre (Established Residential Environs, Dispersed Infill Residential and
Increased Residential Density), but does not provide any guidance on the
definition or location of these areas within the centre. The corresponding local
policy does provide these definitions. However, for clarity, they should also be
expressed and mapped within the Schedule.
The northern boundary of the activity centre along Bambury Street and its
interface with the Dandenong Foothills is causing confusing policy outcomes in
terms of the weight to be afforded to each policy.
132
It is expected that the changes proposed as part of Amendment C133 will address some
of these concerns. Additionally, Council has committed to a review of the Boronia
Structure Plan and associated controls in 2016-2017, with a particular emphasis on
allowing for a genuine assessment of the effectiveness of the Boronia-specific and
broader housing planning controls.
Schedule 8 relates to the Ferntree Gully Village Activity Centre. This is a new control
which was introduced by Amendment C129 in July 2014. It is too early to comment on
its usefulness or effectiveness.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY (DPO)
There are eight schedules to the Development Plan Overlay as follows:
Schedule 1 – Stud Park Shopping Centre;
Schedule 2 – Knox City / Towerpoint Shopping Centre;
Schedule 3;
Schedule 4 – Wellington Village Shopping Centre;
Schedule 6 – Scoresby-Rowville Employment Precinct;
Schedule 7 – Lot 10 Henderson Road, Rowville;
Schedule 8 – Redevelopment of Austral Bricks Site, 525 Stud Road, Scoresby;
and
Schedule 9 – Stamford Park.
A review of the relevant schedules identifies that development has been completed in
several areas. The advice from Council is that Schedules 1, 4 and 7 could be
rationalised as they do not serve an ongoing function in guiding built form.
Additionally, Schedule 2 is proposed to be deleted as part of the current strategic review
of Knox Central.
Schedule 3 relates to land off Kelletts Road, Lysterfield. Advice from Council suggests
that this control can be deleted, subject to its replacement with a control on subdivision
(such as a DDO or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone). Amendment C131 seeks to
apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the land, although it does not specify a
133
value for minimum lot sizes.
Schedule 6 relates the Scoresby-Rowville Employment Precinct. Council’s view is that
this land is substantially undeveloped, with the DPO providing guidance on future built
form. Feedback as part of this review suggests that the content of the overlay is
satisfactory. However, it may need to be reviewed in light of the reformed commercial
and industrial zones.
Schedule 8 relates to the Austral Bricks site. The land is still being developed, with the
DPO guiding built form. There is no need to amend or delete the control at this stage.
Schedule 9 relates to Stamford Park. The Schedule is based on the 2010 version of the
Master Plan, which is outdated. This Schedule should be redrafted to include the
relevant direction provided by the June 2014 version of the Master Plan adopted by
Council.
FLOODWAY OVERLAY, LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY AND SPECIAL
BUILDING OVERLAY
The Schedules to the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Special Building Overlay
are identical.
The Floodway Overlay contains a blank schedule.
Comment has been sought from Melbourne Water about the appropriateness of these
schedules.
In terms of the Special Building Overlay, Council’s Infrastructure team recognised that
the SBO is currently limited to addressing Melbourne Water’s assets only. It was
recommended that Council consider appropriate overlay mapping to also protect against
potential flooding from Council drainage infrastructure. Council is presently undertaking
detailed flood modelling, in association with Melbourne Water, to underpin any
assessment of whether further overlay mapping is required.
BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT OVERLAY
The Bushfire Management Overlay replaced the Wildfire Management Overlay and
applies to a large area in the east of the municipality. The overlay does not include a
local schedule.
134
PUBLIC ACQUISITION OVERLAY (PAO)
This overlay has one schedule with acquisition authorities identified as follows:
PAO1 – VicRoads;
PAO2 – Parks Victoria; and
PAO5 – Knox City Council.
This schedule has evidently worked well and will be modified on an on-going basis to
reflect the acquisition objectives of the authorities.
PAO5 is not mapped. It was previously applied to land in Reservoir Crescent, Rowville,
which has since been rezoned to Public Conservation and Resource Zone. It is
appropriate to delete PAO5.
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OVERLAY (EAO)
This overlay should be applied only to land identified, known or reasonably suspected of
being contaminated and which has not satisfied one of the two requirements of the
overlay. (Refer to the Ministerial Direction No 1 Potentially Contaminated Land). This
overlay has a specific purpose only and is not intended to generally identify all land
known or suspected to be contaminated.
Where land has been identified as being potentially contaminated Ministerial Direction
No. 1 requires an audit to be completed to the requirements of the Direction before the
site is developed. This overlay is not intended to have a schedule but it identifies places
requiring environmental audit clearance prior to development for a ‘….sensitive use’.
It has been applied to a limited number of properties in Bayswater, Wantirna South,
Rowville, The Basin, Ferntree Gully and Knoxfield.
The application of the EAO should continue to be reviewed on a site-by-site basis in
accordance with the Ministerial Direction on Potentially Contaminated Land and
associated Gudielines.
RESTRUCTURE OVERLAY
The Restructure Overlay applies to two discrete pockets of land in Upper Ferntree Gully.
Council should investigate whether the land has been restructured and, in turn, whether
these overlays can be rationalised.
135
ROAD CLOSURE OVERLAY (RXO)
The Road Closure Overlay has been applied to areas affected by a road closure in the
Dandenong Foothills.
Council should investigate whether this overlay serves an ongoing purpose, where roads
have been closed and, in turn, whether the overlay should be rationalised.
13.3 POSSIBLE NEW OVERLAYS
In general, Council has applied a comprehensive suite of overlays which seek to address
built form requirements, vegetation retention and development constraints for certain
areas within the municipality.
In terms of new overlays, there was a general view from Council’s traffic engineers that
the use of the Parking Overlay should be investigated to provide parking rates which suit
local circumstances and address the shortfall in public transport services for some
centres. The application of such a control will need to be strategically justified by a
Parking Strategy, which has been recommended by the Integrated Transport Plan,
adopted by Council.
13.4 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE OVERLAYS AND
SCHEDULES
The Knox Planning Scheme provides a robust overlay regime to guide built form,
landscaping and vegetation and other matters across the municipality.
Many of the overlays and schedules in the Knox Planning Scheme require review and
further work including possible deletion, exemptions, decision guidelines, map changes
and the like.
In the context of the recent State initiatives to streamline the planning process and
remove unnecessary permits, it appears that Council could minimise applications by
including some realistic exemptions in many of the schedules. This is particularly evident
within the suite of controls that affect the Foothills.
Recommendations:
Audit all Overlays and schedules within the Dandenong Foothills to identify
whether there are opportunities for red tape reduction, working on from revious
work undertaken with Amendment C120.
136
Audit and review the Design and Development Overlays for the Bayswater and
Boronia Activity Centres to improve clarity and expression.
Consider applying the Parking Overlay within the municipality, subject to the
recommendations of a detailed Parking Strategy.
137
14. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement:
Audit the application and performance of the Specific Provisions in the scheme; and investigate whether or not the Schedules in the scheme have been appropriately applied.
14.1 AUDIT OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS AND OTHER
SCHEDULES
There are a number of opportunities in Clause 52 and Clause 66 of the Knox Planning
Scheme for Council to specify local variations or agencies as follows:
Clause Title Schedule Comment
52.01 Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision
Subdivision of residential land into lots of less than 725 sq m – 8.5%.
Subdivision of residential land into lots greater than or equal to 725 sq m – 5%.
The Schedule refers to the old Residential zones. Amendment C131 seeks to update these references.
52.02 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves
None Specified.
52.03 Specific Sites and Exclusions
The Schedule specifies site specific controls for 5 individual sites.
52.05 Advertising Signs None Specified
52.16 Native Vegetation Precinct Plan
None Specified
52.17 Native Vegetation Permit exemptions for removal of some native vegetation.
52.27 Licensed Premises None specified Consider preparing a ‘Licensed Premises Strategy’
52.28 Gaming Prohibition of gaming machines within several of the City’s shopping
Consider preparing a ‘Gaming Strategy’
138
complexes and all strip shopping centres.
52.32 Wind Energy Facilities No Schedule
52.37 Dry Stone Walls None Specified
66.04 Referral requirements All applications under Clause 2 of SUZ1 require referral to Melbourne Water.
Needs review.
66.06 Notice requirements None Specified Needs review
While Council has taken the opportunity to include local content in some of these
schedules, there still remains significant opportunity to better use these schedules
subject to further strategic work. This is particularly relevant in light of consultation issues
about electronic gaming machines and licensed premises.
The Schedules to Clauses 66.04 and 66.06 include referral and notice requirements.
These schedules may need modification and updating to reflect other recommendations
arising from the review and further strategic work to be undertaken by Council.
14.2 AUDIT OF INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS
There are ten local ‘Incorporated Documents’ listed in the Schedule to Clause 81.01 of
the Knox Planning Scheme. These are:
Knox central – Rembrandts Triangle and Stud Road West Precincts Plan – August 2010
C101
Proposed Knox Driving Range, April 2004 C39
Restructure Plan 1, November 1999 NPS1
Restructure Plan 3, November 1999 NPS1
Site Specific Control – 27 Reservoir Crescent, Rowville July 2011 Incorporated document
C99
Site Specific Control – Lot 3 LP 42250 Wellington Road, Rowville, 11 March 2011
C87
Site Specific Control – Section of Napoleon Road, C110
139
Lysterfield, January 2013
Waterford Valley Comprehensive Development Plan, Drawing No. 30015698/101 (A), prepared by Aspect Landscape Consultants Pty Ltd, August 1999
NPS1
Woolworths Oxygen, Knoxfield, February 2011 C107
As part of this review, an audit of this list of incorporated documents to ascertain whether
they are all still relevant (and in fact whether they are all still available) has found that
most are relevant, however, some could be rationalised. Council should undertake a
detailed review of these provisions and documents.
14.3 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS AND
INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS
It is apparent from consultation that all schedules to the Specific Provisions and Clause
81.01 need to be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended
purpose, or whether they are still relevant.
140
15. FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM
Continuous Improvement Review Kit requirement: Document the strategic work that has been completed or carried out since the approval of the scheme and any additional work required to strengthen the strategic direction of the planning scheme.
This section of the report addresses the ‘Strategic Work’ program which Council has
undertaken as part of the on-going maintenance of the existing planning scheme.
Council is already committed to undertaking a range of strategic projects within the next
review period. Some of these projects are mentioned within the Municipal Strategic
Statement in the ‘undertaking further work’ section of each clause. The following table
provides a commentary on the status of the key work to be undertaken.
Further Strategic Work Project
Status Responsible Authority
Clause 21.04 Urban Design
Prepare a road corridor master plan for the declared arterial road network in the City.
Continue to develop structure plans for all activity centres.
Prepare an Urban Design Guidelines local policy into the planning scheme.
Not yet commissioned.
Ongoing strategic work. Some have commenced.
Completed in part. Amendment C131 implements residential guidelines.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Clause 21.05 Housing
Prepare Development Contribution Plans as required for activity centres and strategic redevelopment
Recently commissioned. Scoping studies completed in March 2015.
Knox City Council.
141
sites.
Prepare Development Contribution Plans for upgrading of the drainage system.
Prepare structure plans for activity centres to clearly identify housing opportunities and constraints.
Implementing the Knox Affordable Housing Action Plan 2007-2012 (from Clause 21.08).
Monitor the Community Profile to ensure that planning policies are meeting the housing needs of the Knox community (from clause 21.08).
Recently commissioned. Scoping studies completed in March 2015.
Ongoing strategic work. Partial implementation through Amendment C131.
Partial implementation through Amendment C131. Further strategic work required.
Extensive Housing Monitoring system in place.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Clause 21.06 Environment
Review the zoning in the area surrounding the Dandenong Valley Parklands to ensure consistency with objectives for development of the park.
Review and implement the recommendations of the Knox Significant Vegetation Study (2003) and the Sites of Biological Significance in Knox – 2nd Edition, 2010.
Review the City of
Not yet commissioned. Amendment C74 seeks to rezone Jenkins Orchard to General Residential and Commercial 1.
Completed.
Not yet commissioned.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
142
Knox Heritage Study (1993).
Undertake an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Study.
Work with power supply agencies to develop complementary design standards for fencing and other treatments around their infrastructure to minimise visual impact.
Implement the Knox Urban Design Framework,
particularly with regards to the Lewis Parklands and Blind Creek Precincts.
Not yet commissioned.
Not yet commissioned.
Completed in part.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
21.07 Economic Development
Prepare Development Contribution Plans.
Undertake an assessment of future retail needs in Knox.
Continue to prepare Structure Plans for activity centres, including the Mountain Gate Activity Centre and the balance of the Stud Park Activity Centre, and implement them into the planning scheme.
Prepare Urban Design Guidelines and local policy.
Scoping Study completed March 2015.
Not yet commissioned
Ongoing strategic work. Amendment C131 implements a Structure Plan for the Stud Park Activity Centre. The Mountain Gate Place Program is providing guidance for Mountain Gate.
Completed in part. Amendment C131 implements residential guidelines.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
Knox City Council.
143
Implement the Knox Central Urban Design Framework
for the Knox Central Principal Activity Centre.
As specified in the Bayswater 2020: Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan (2005), in
partnership with the Department of Infrastructure undertake a regional strategic transport analysis, including the role, nature and function of Mountain Highway.
As specified in the Bayswater 2020: Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan (2005),
following the completion of the strategic analysis of the regional transport system, prepare an Urban Design Strategy/Master Plan for Mountain Highway addressing landscape, urban design, access and improved pedestrian and cycle facilities.
Completed in part, with interim controls.
Not yet commissioned.
Not yet commissioned.
Knox City Council
Knox City Council / State Government.
Knox City Council / State Government.
Clause 21.08 Infrastructure
Continue to establish management plans for key recreational facilities.
Implement the City of Knox Stormwater
Ongoing strategic work.
Knox City Council.
144
Drainage Strategy 2005.
Completed. Knox City Council.
Other new strategic work that may be required to support future policy development or
changes to the provisions of the planning scheme was discussed during consultations
and commentary can be found in earlier chapters of this report.
145
16. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16.1 REVIEW REPORT SUMMARY
Knox City Council is required to review the Knox Planning Scheme every four years.
Monitoring, auditing and reporting of the Planning Scheme is now a mandatory
requirement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
This review has analysed Council’s strategic performance and has noted some
significant shifts in planning policy by both the State Government and Council since the
last review in 2010. This review has confirmed that new important State and local
strategic priorities have emerged since the last review. The review has also analysed
opportunities for red tape reduction within the Knox Planning Scheme.
This review has confirmed that the basis of the Knox Planning Scheme is fundamentally
sound and strategically justified. However, it is apparent that to remain contemporary,
Council will need to undertake strategic work to address gaps that have become
apparent since the last review. On this basis, this review has made recommendations
regarding the type of strategies and plans that need to be undertaken to explore the
identified land use and development planning gaps.
Equally, a wholesale review and rewrite of the Local Planning Policy Framework will
assist in improving the clarity and structure of this section of the Scheme. It is clear that it
has been subject to a number of incremental improvements and its lack of a constant
narrative is a major deficiency of the Scheme.
The importance of maintaining a contemporary planning scheme should not be
underestimated. The Knox Planning Scheme is an important tool in giving effect to
Council strategies such as the Knox Integrated Strategy and Council Plan where their
objectives and policies seek to influence land use and development within the City of
Knox.
In light of the significant amount of strategic work undertaken at a State and local level
in the inter-review period, Council risks its LPPF becoming obsolete and redundant in
some significant policy areas if a re-write of the local components of the Scheme is not
undertaken as a matter of priority. This would be a poor planning outcome and could
potentially reduce the effectiveness of the planning scheme as a tool for decision-makers
including Council, VCAT and Planning Panels Victoria.
146
16.2 REVIEW REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
There are 23 specific recommendations in this report relating to all aspects of the
Planning Scheme, which are considered should be carried out over the next three year
period. Overall, there are two aspects of strategic planning work that need to be
advanced in order to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the Knox Planning Scheme.
These are:
Maintenance and administration of the Planning Scheme, including red tape
reduction; and
Strategic policy development.
It is recommended that strategic planning resources are dedicated to both aspects. The
policy work comprises distinct projects that can form the basis of a Strategic Work
program for Council. With regards to the maintenance of the planning scheme, it is
recommended that a rolling program investigate the appropriateness of existing
Schedules and controls in the Scheme as a dedicated part of the strategic planning
portfolio.
This review has also had regard to the recommendations of the 2010 Planning Scheme
Review. It is noted that some recommendations from this former review are still
outstanding. Where these recommendations still have ongoing relevance to future
strategic planning or the maintenance of the Knox Planning Scheme, we have
incorporated them into the recommendations of this review.
Prioritised recommendations arising from the Review of the Knox Planning Scheme are
as follows:
PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW REPORT
That Council:
R1. Adopt the report as the review required pursuant to section 12B (1) of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987.
R2. Forward the report to the Minister for Planning as required by section 12B
(5) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
147
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLANNING SCHEME
In terms of prioritising a work program for the administration and improvement of the
Knox Planning Scheme and undertaking strategic policy development, the following
specific recommendations are made:
R3. Rewrite and restructure the existing Local Planning Policy Framework.
This rewrite should review the format and structure of the MSS to improve its
clarity and remove repetition. It is also appropriate to implement and reference
all adopted strategic work (at Chapter 5.4) into the Knox Planning Scheme
and update existing and new reference documents as relevant. The rewrite is
also an important opportunity to implement strategic work that arises from this
review, such as the extension of social impact assessment guidelines for
strategic sites and other developments. This review should adopt a “first
principles” approach to the structure and content of the LPPF, to consider all
options for improvement and rationalisation. This rewrite could be undertaken
in conjunction with Recommendation R12.
The rewrite and restructure of the LPPF should also incorporate other
recommendations arising from this review, including:
- The implementation of key recommendations from the Integrated
Transport Plan;
- Expanding social impact assessment guidelines for strategic sites and
major developments and provide stronger overall guidance on future
development of strategic sites and other major developments;
- The implementation of key land use and development recommendations
from other Council strategies, as relevant; and,
- The implementation of key recommendations from other strategic work
arising from this Review, where timing allows.
R4. Review of the Dandenong Foothills planning controls to examine
opportunities for red tape reduction and to ensure consistency in permit
triggers and decision guidelines. Implement in conjunction with
Recommendation R3 where timing allows.
R5. Review of other Zone and Overlay Schedules in accordance with the
148
comments of this review report (at Chapters 13 and 14), to ensure that they
are achieving their intended purpose. Implement in conjunction with
Recommendation R3 where timing allows.
R6. Review and rewrite Schedules to the Particular and General Provisions in
accordance with this review report to ensure that they are achieving their
intended purpose. Implement in conjunction with Recommendation R3 where
timing allows.
R7. Development and Implementation of a Land for Employment Strategy
encompassing a broad review of current and future opportunities for the use
of current industrial and commercial land, along with an established activity
centre hierarchy with the role and vision for each centre.
R8. Review of Rural Areas to provide strategic guidance for land use and
development for land outside the urban growth boundary, particularly in light
of amendments to the suite of rural zones.
R9. Development and Implementation of the Knox Central Structure Plan to
provide updated strategic guidance for the City’s largest activity centre. It is
important that this implementation occurs prior to the expiry of interim controls
on 30 June 2016.
R10. Development and implementation of a Wantirna Health Precinct
Structure Plan and other strategic planning guidance, in collaboration with
other key stakeholders.
R11. Review of the Heritage Study, including a broader assessment of Aboriginal
cultural heritage.
R12. Development and implementation of policy to address existing gaps
within the Local Planning Policy Framework relating to Non-Residential
Uses in Residential Zones, Environmentally Sustainable Design, Biodiversity
and Native Vegetation, Gaming, Liquor Licensing and Advertising Signs.
Implementation could be undertaken in conjunction with Recommendation R3
where timing allows.
R13. Review and implementation of the Knox Urban Design Framework to
ensure that it continues to provide relevant guidance on urban design within
the public and private realm within the City, and is appropriately implemented
149
into the planning scheme.
R14. Review of Vegetation Protection Overlays (Schedules 1, 2 & 3), to ensure
they continue to effectively implement their objectives
R15. Investigation and development of Liveability Guidelines, and
implementation into the Planning Scheme as appropriate.
R16. Development and implemention of Development Contributions Plans
across the municipality, as appropriate.
R17. Implementation of the Upper Gully Structure Plan, which is currently
under development.
R18. Undertaking further strategic work identified in the Integrated Transport
Plan, including investigating options for a Parking Strategy, Green Travel
Plans and review of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
R19. Review of the Electronic Gaming Policy (2010) and investigation of options
to incorporate this strategic work into the Knox Planning Scheme.
R20. Development of a Licensed Premises Policy and Study to provide
direction for the appropriate assessment of licensed premises within the
municipality and investigate opportunities to incorporate into the Knox
Planning Scheme as appropriate.
R21. Development and implementation of a ‘Reverse Buffers’ Policy to
address interface issues between former landfills and quarry sites with
sensitive uses.
R22. Review of the Boronia Activity Centre Structure Plan and associated
planning controls to ensure that they are achieving their intended purpose
and remain relevant to decision-making in this centre, particularly in response
to the implementation of the new commercial and residential zones and to
allow for a genuine assessment of the effectiveness of the Boronia-specific
and broader housing planning controls.
R23. Review of the Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan and associated
planning controls to ensure that they are achieving their intended purpose
150
and remain relevant to decision-making in this centre, particularly in response
to the new commercial, industrial and residential zones and other strategic
work completed or currently underway in the wider area.
A risk-benefit analysis of each of these recommendations is provided at Appendix One.
151
APPENDIX ONE – RECOMMENDATION RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS MATRIX
152
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
R1 Adopt the report as the review required pursuant to section 12B(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
Compliance with the requirements of the Act. Failure to comply with obligations under Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Whole report
R2 Forward the report to the Minister for Planning as required by section 12B(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
Compliance with the requirements of the Act. Failure to comply with obligations under Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Whole report
R3 Rewrite and restructure the existing Local Planning Policy Framework and other local content of the Knox Planning Scheme Review and update content, determine format and structure of document. Planning scheme amendment
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making.
Updates the LPPF to accord with adopted plans and strategies across Council, including Council Plan and Knox Integrated Strategy.
Knox Planning Scheme is not up to date (ie: does not reflect current adopted Council strategies) and as such final decisions on permits may be more ad-hoc.
Knox Planning Scheme provides insufficient guidance on land use and development planning.
Aspects of the scheme remain inconsistent with State policy.
All of this could reduce the effectiveness of the planning scheme as a tool for decision-makers (ie: Council/VCAT planning panels) and result in less desirable built form and land use outcomes.
1.7 1.8 6.6 9.11 9.15 9.21 11.2 11.4 11.6 16.1 16.2
R4 Dandenong Foothills controls: review and implement Review to examine opportunities for red tape reduction and ensure consistency of permit triggers and decision guidelines and Implement as appropriate. Planning scheme amendment.
Reduces the number of permits triggered within the Foothills for minor matters, reducing council resources.
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making.
Provides clear guidance and certainty for permit requirements.
Confusion among landowners about permit triggers.
Expense of council resources to assess uncontentious permit applications.
1.8 4.1 9.5 11.3 13.2 13.4 16.2
153
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
R5 Zone and Overlay Schedules: review and implement Review and implement as appropriate those elements that can be achieved as part of Knox Planning Scheme Rewrite & priority projects
Review all zone selection in light of modifications to zones (exception residential). Review Comprehensive Development Zone to consider options for red tape reduction. Rationalise all zone schedules and delete redundant clauses as required. Monitor the application of the residential zones following gazettal of Amendment C131.
Ensures that zone and overlay schedules are performing effectively and achieving desirable land use and development outcomes.
Potential for land use and development activities to be inconsistent with Council’s preferred direction.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of policy guidance.
Knox Planning Scheme provides insufficient guidance on land use and development planning.
Aspects of the scheme remain inconsistent with State policy.
All of this could result in less desirable built form and land use outcomes.
1.8 12 13 14
16.2
R6 Particular and General Provisions and other Schedules: review and implement Review and implement as appropriate those elements that can be achieved as part of Knox Planning Scheme Rewrite & priority projects
Improves performance of Scheme
Ensures relevance of content
Ensures provisions are performing effectively and achieving outcomes
Potential for land use and development activities to be inconsistent with Council’s preferred direction.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of locally specific policy guidance.
1.8 14
16.2
R7 Development of a Land for Employment Strategy: develop and implement
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making in the City’s activity centres and industrial areas.
Could result in increased economic opportunities for the
Insufficient guidance for appropriate land use and development within activity centres and industrial areas.
1.4 1.6 1.8 7.6
154
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
Broad review of current and future opportunities for the use of current industrial land, along with an established activity centre hierarchy with the role and vision for each centre. Planning scheme amendment.
utilisation of commercial and industrial land.
Could result in increased employment opportunities within the municipality.
Provides a ‘defendable’ framework for the coordinated and orderly use and development of land in commercial and industrial areas.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of policy guidance.
Potential for unplanned loss of commercial and industrial activity.
Existing Industrial & commercial areas/conditions are not best placed to meet Knox’s employment and business needs into the future
8.2 9.1 9.2 9.22 11.2 11.3 11.5 11.6 12.3 12.4 13.2 16.2
R8 Rural Areas review and implement Strategic analysis of the area and activities within it; an assessment of potential tourist activities and where; a review of existing planning provisions and recommendations on future provisions; planning scheme amendment.
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making in the City’s rural areas.
Could result in increased economic opportunities for the utilisation of land in rural areas.
Provides a framework for the coordinated and orderly use and development of rural land.
Insufficient guidance on appropriate land use and development within rural areas.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of policy guidance.
Potential for ‘urban’ activities to appear unmanaged within the City’s rural areas.
Less desirable built form and land use outcomes that change the attributes of Knox’s rural areas.
1.4 1.8 5.1 7.6 8.2 9.3 11.5 11.6 12.3 12.4 16.2
R9 Knox Central Structure Plan: develop and implement Development of the Structure Plan. Planning Scheme Amendment.
Address strategic gap in the planning scheme.
Provides detailed guidance on the appropriate parameters for land use and development within the activity centre, including height, setbacks and other considerations.
Gives support to Council’s aspirations and the management of development within the precinct.
Insufficient guidance for land use and development within the City’s pre-eminent activity centre.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of policy guidance.
Knox Central Principal Activity Centre Local Policy at Clause 22.04 expires 30 July 2016.
Missed opportunities for investment and development within the precinct due to lack of strategic framework.
1.8 5.7 11.3 12.3 13.2 16.2
R10 Wantirna Health Precinct: Provides Council with an ability to ensure that the Wantirna Health precinct is being developed in
Insufficient guidance for appropriate land use and development within one of the City’s major
1.8 5.7
155
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
develop and implement Continue to work with Metropolitan Planning Authority and other key stakeholders on developing and implementing a structure plan and other related strategic planning documents for the precinct
accordance with an agreed vision.
Assists in encouraging investment and development in the precinct, commensurate with its status as a health precinct of State significance in Plan Melbourne.
strategic development sites.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT or not supported at panel hearings due to lack of appropriate policy guidance.
Major developers/investors choose to invest elsewhere due to inadequate strategic planning work having been completed and opportunities for targeted investment within the precinct are missed.
6.5 9.1 16.2
R11 Heritage Study: review and implement Review and update of Knox’s heritage database and heritage Study; and incorporate into Scheme
Ability to protect significant heritage and cultural assets within the City.
Lack of protection for heritage sites of local significance may lead to their permanent loss. Potential heritage and cultural assets not recognised and afforded planning potential.
1.8 9.4 16.2
R12 Local Planning Policy Framework New Policies: develop and implement Develop and implement new planning policies to address existing gaps, including Non-residential uses in residential zones, Environmentally Sustainable Development, Biodiversity and native vegetation, and Advertising Signage
Addresses strategic gaps in local policy.
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making.
Insufficient guidance for certain land use and development within the City of Knox.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of policy guidance.
1 6.5 7.6 8.2 9
11 16.2
R13 Knox Urban Design Framework: review and implement Review and update existing document and incorporate into Scheme
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making on public realm and private realm urban design within the municipality.
Ensures that the City retains its “green and leafy” image.
Outdated guidance for consideration of urban design matters in development.
Potential for poor urban design outcomes in future development due to lack of guidance.
1.8 9.4 16.2
156
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
Updates a significant strategic document to ensure it remains relevant.
Potentially results in improved urban design outcomes in development throughout the municipality.
Relevant aspects of UDF not given due weight by VCAT and others given its age and wording in the scheme.
R14 Vegetation Protection Overlay 1, 2 & 3: review and implement Review where VPO schedules apply and examine purpose and effectiveness of the control. Also examine further opportunities for red tape reduction and implement as appropriate.
Would make clearer the purpose of these overlays.
Would ensure they are applied to appropriate properties.
Provides contemporary policy for decision-making.
Provides clear guidance and certainty for permit requirements.
Overlays may apply unnecessarily to some properties.
Expense of council resources to assess uncontentious permit applications.
High value existing trees not presently protected may be destroyed.
1.8 9.5 13.2 16.2
R15 Liveability Guidelines: develop and implement Investigate, develop and
implement into Scheme
Ability to promote healthy and active lifestyles through the planning scheme.
Ability to implement a key focus of the City Plan and Council Plan.
Planning outcomes inconsistent with Council vision.
A physical environment that is unable to appropriate respond to the healthy and active lifestyle initiatives promoted within the City Plan.
1.8 9.10 9.22 16.2
R16 Development Contributions Plans: develop and implement Progress this project to determine specific DCP or ICP (Infrastructure Contribution Plans) to recommend for inclusion into Scheme and incorporate in Scheme as appropriate
Provides Council with the ability to levy appropriate funding from new development for the necessary development and upgrading of infrastructure to support new development and anticipated population increase.
Provides an alternative infrastructure funding opportunity for council.
Process will enable Council to have a detailed and accurate understanding of its infrastructure networks and their capacity.
Process will enable Council to determine infrastructure requirements and when that infrastructure is required to assist in informing the capital works program.
Lost opportunity for an infrastructure funding option.
Infrastructure planning is not sufficiently linked to infrastructure demand.
If DCP not incorporated into Scheme then costs associated with this project are not fully recovered.
1.8 5.4 5.12 8.2 9.22 11.2 16.2
157
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
R17 Upper Gully Structure Plan: implement Implement outcomes of the upper Gully Structure Plan into the planning scheme
Address strategic gap in the planning scheme.
Provides detailed guidance on the appropriate parameters for land use and development within this sensitive part of the municipality.
Should assist Centre’s performance and guide Council’s business for supporting the Centre.
Insufficient guidance for land use and development within the Upper Gully.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of policy guidance.
After 30 April 2016 the interim height controls associated with Amendment C130 cease to apply through DDO10. When this happens there will be limited guidance on heights without the height recommendations of the Structure Plan being incorporated into the Scheme.
1.8 6.5 16.2
R18 Integrated Transport Plan: develop and implement Undertake further strategic work identified in Plan and incorporation of relevant matters into Scheme
Provides Council with a realistic picture of the transport needs within the municipality.
Provides Council with an ability to realistically respond to the City’s transport needs.
Ensures Council’s transport strategies are appropriately implemented into the Knox Planning Scheme.
Lack of guidance within the planning scheme for decision makers on locally specific traffic and parking matters.
Potential for future development to increase traffic impacts on road and public transport networks.
Should the Integrated Transport Plan not be incorporated into the Scheme, little weight given at VCAT/planning panels.
1.6 1.8 9.15 9.22 11.2 11.5 11.6 13.3 16.2
R19 Electronic Gaming Policy: review and implement Review policy and incorporation of relevant matters into Scheme. Planning Scheme Amendment.
Ability to provide a locally-specific framework for decision-making on electronic gaming machines that takes account of the City’s existing density of machines.
Addresses aspects of the City Plan.
Lack of guidance within the planning scheme for decision-makers on appropriate parameters of electronic gaming machines.
Potential for unfettered increased supply in electronic gaming machines.
1.8 4.1 8.2 9.8 9.22 14.1 16.2
R20 Licensed Premises Policy: develop and implement Investigate potential for planning system to assist in achieving Council’s objectives
Ability to provide a locally-specific framework for decision-making on licensed premises.
Addresses aspects of the City Plan and associated strategies.
Lack of guidance within the planning scheme for decision-makers on the appropriate locations and conditions for use and development of licensed premises.
Potential for increased supply of licensed premises.
1.8 8.2 9.9 9.22 14.1 16.2
158
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
in relation to Licensed Premises and incorporation of relevant matters into Scheme Planning Scheme Amendment.
R21 Implementation of ‘Reverse Buffers’ Policy: develop and implement Investigate suite of planning tools to apply to better address interface issues between adverse amenity potential and sensitive development following outcomes of Metro Waste and Resource Recovery Group pilot project. Implement as appropriate.
Ability to prevent inappropriate (sensitive) land uses and development encroaching within areas subject to adverse amenity potential.
Ability to protect public health and wellbeing through the planning scheme.
Overlay would inform public of land in close proximity of former landfills/quarries which have potential for adverse amenity impacts in proximity to sensitive uses
Potential for inappropriate land use and development adjacent to former landfill and quarry sites which may have adverse amenity/health consequences.
1.8 9.20 16.2
R22 Boronia Activity Centre Structure Plan: review and implement Review Structure Plan and planning controls to ensure they are achieving their intended purpose and remain relevant to decision-making, particularly in response to new zones and other strategic work completed or underway. Planning Scheme Amendment.
Provides Council with an ability to ensure that the Boronia Activity Centre is being developed in accordance with Council’s vision.
Provides contemporary and updated guidance for appropriate land use and development within the centre, including heights, setbacks and other considerations.
Potential for outdated strategic framework being used to guide land use and development within one of the City’s key activity centres.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of current policy guidance.
1.8 4.1 4.2 5.7 9.7 11.3 13.2 13.4 16.2
R23 Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan: review and implement Review Structure Plan and planning controls to ensure they are achieving their
Provides Council with an ability to ensure that the Bayswater Activity Centre is being developed in accordance with Council’s vision.
Provides contemporary and updated guidance for appropriate land use and development within the
Potential for outdated strategic framework being used to guide land use and development within one of the City’s key activity centres.
Potential for Council decisions to be overturned on appeal at VCAT due to lack of current policy
1.8
5.8 6.4 9.7 11.3
159
Rec. No
Recommendation Benefits of implementation Risks associated with inaction Report Section
intended purpose and remain relevant to decision-making, particularly in response to new zones and other strategic work in and around the precinct, either completed or underway. Planning Scheme Amendment.
centre, including heights, setbacks and other considerations.
Provides an opportunity to incorporate other strategic work already completed or underway, including the Bayswater Triangle Masterplan, grade separation of railway lines and the Bayswater/Bayswater North/Kilsyth Employment Precinct project.
guidance. 13.2 13.4 16.2
160
APPENDIX TWO: IMPORTANT LOCAL AMENDMENTS SINCE LAST REVIEW
C54 3 FEB 2011 The amendment:
Updates the MSS to refer to Bayswater Activity Centres in accordance
with Bayswater 2020: Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan, May
2005.
Introduces a new Clause 22.05 (Bayswater Major activity centre
including key redevelopment sites) to guide Council’s discretion on
development and use of Key Redevelopment Sites.
At Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character) deletes land within the
Bayswater Activity Centre boundary.
Inserts the Bayswater 2020: Bayswater Activity Centre Structure Plan,
May 2005 as a reference document in Clause 22.10 (Housing).
Rezones land west of the retail core (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 High
Street, Lot P53 Highmoor Avenue and 688, 690, 692 and 700
Mountain Highway and 2 Pine Street) to a Mixed Use Zone.
Rezones land on the south side of James Street (5A James Street, 3
Railway Parade and 1 Valentine Street) to a Business 5 Zone.
Corrects an anomaly where the wrong land in High Street and Station
Street is zoned Public Use Zone 6 (Local Government). Land at Lot 5
High Street and Lot 6 Station Street is rezoned Public Use Zone 6
(Local Government) and land at 7-13 High Street and 14 Station
Street is rezoned Business 1 Zone.
Replaces the interim Design and Development Overlay Schedule 6
Bayswater Activity Centre with a permanent schedule.
C107 3 MAR 2011 The amendment applies to land at 1464 Ferntree Gully Road,
Knoxfield, and amends the Schedules to Clause 52.03 – Specific Sites
and Exclusions and Clause 81.01 – Table of Documents Incorporated
in this Scheme, to replace the Incorporated Document titled
‘Woolworths Oxygen, Knoxfield, September 2010’, with the
Incorporated Document titled ‘Woolworths Oxygen, Knoxfield,
February 2011’.
C99 15 SEP 2011 Removes zoning inconsistencies and mapping errors. Rezones
selected Council owned properties appropriately. Corrects clerical
errors in Planning Scheme ordinance. Removes outdated overlays.
C62 9 FEB 2012 Updates Clauses 21.07 and 22.10 to refer to the Boronia Activity
Centre in accordance with the Boronia Structure Plan 2006.
At Clause 22.07 (Neighbourhood Character), excludes land within the
Boronia Activity Centre boundary from the policy.
Amends Clause 22.06, Boronia Structure Plan Policy, to guide
Council’s decision making on use and development of land within the
Boronia Activity Centre.
Updates the Design and Development Overlay to include a new
Schedule 7 applying to the Boronia Activity Centre.
161
Rezones land within the Boronia Activity Centre to implement the
Boronia Structure Plan, 2006.
C113 19 JUL 2012 The amendment extends the expiry date of the Knox Central Principal
Activity Centre Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.04 for an additional
one (1) year until 30 June 2013 and updates the references to clauses
within Policy basis section.
C122 17 JAN 2013 Introduces Schedule 8 to the Design and Development Overlay to the
Knox Planning Scheme, limiting building heights in the Ferntree Gully
Neighbourhood Activity Centre to 7.5 metres for a period of two years.
C101 21 MAR 2013 Introduces the Priority Development Zone and applies Schedule 1 to
the Priority Development Zone to two precincts within the Knox
Central Principal Activity Centre (Rembrandts Triangle and Stud Road
West).
C110 28 MAR 2013 Corrects mapping anomalies for 13 sites in the Knox Planning
Scheme.
Amends a number of Clauses in the Local Planning Policy Framework
and DDO4 to ensure consistency with the overarching strategy
directions in the State provisions at Clause 13.05 Bushfire and the
Bushfire exemptions at Clause 52.48.
Updates the reference documents listed in Clauses 21.06 and 22.10
and Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay.
Amends DDO6 and DDO7 to ensure that only buildings and works
clearly linked to the purpose of the control trigger the requirement for
planning approval.
Amends the schedules to Clauses 52.03 and 81.01 to reflect the
removal of redundant controls for 1063 Wellington Road, Rowville and
to introduce a new incorporated document for subdivision controls
over a section of Napoleon Road, Lysterfield.
C49 11 APR 2013 Implements the findings and recommendations of the ‘Sites of
Biological Significance in Knox – 2nd
Edition, 2010’ study. The
amendment applies the Environmental Significance Overlay 2 and 3
and the Vegetation Protection Overlay 4 to land within Knox identified
as having biological significance with the overlay schedule applied
based on significance level and the type of protection required. The
Vegetation Protection Overlay 1 and 3 are removed where there will
be new controls and/or the Significant Landscape Overlay. The
amendment also updates the MSS in relation to the sites of biological
significance and includes a scheduled area where specific native
vegetation does not require the issue of a permit to remove, destroy or
lop.
C117 16 MAY 2013 Implements a number of the recommendations of the Knox City
Heritage Advice Report, prepared by Context Pty Ltd in 2012 by
amending maps (2HO, 2VPO2, 6HO, 6VPO2,, 7HO & 7VPO2) and
the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay at Clause 43.01 to delete 3
places and amend the text associated with 2 places. The amendment
also updates Schedule 2 to the VPO to introduce two new references
and delete two references.
162
C128 18 JUL 2013 The amendment extends the expiry date of the Knox Central Principal
Activity Centre Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.04 until 30 July
2016.
C93 8 AUG 2013 Rezones part of Stamford Park to Residential 1 Zone, Public Use
Zone and Public Park and Recreation Zone, amends the extent of
Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6, introduces a new
Development Plan Overlay Schedule 9, removes the Public
Acquisition Overlay 4, and amends the extent of map reference HO24,
to implement the recommendations of the Stamford Park Master Plan
Report (updated February 2013). The amendment reinstates earlier
changes to the Local Planning Policy Framework in relation to bushfire
hazard which were subsequently omitted by administrative error.
C95 21 NOV 2013 Updates Clause 22.06 to provide clearer guidance on use and
development within the Boronia Major Activity Centre, and Schedule 7
to Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay to provide clearer
guidance on desired built form outcomes within residential areas in the
centre with an interim expiry date of 15 December 2015.
C118 6 FEB 2014 The amendment corrects mapping anomalies for 37 sites in the Knox
Planning Scheme and amends Clauses 22.05, 22.06, 22.10, and the
Schedules 6 and 7 to the Design and Development Overlay to update
reference documents to the latest versions, and removes Schedule 2
to the Vegetation Protection Overlay from 2 sites.
GC6 5 JUN 2014 The Amendment removes floor space restrictions in planning schemes
following the introduction of the reformed commercial zones in
Amendment VC100. The floor space caps are removed from zones
and overlays in activity centres, commercial centres and employment
areas in metropolitan Melbourne planning schemes which currently
restrict retail and other associated commercial uses.
C129 13 NOV 2014 Amends the Municipal Strategic Statement, Local Planning Policies,
amends the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8, applies an
Environmental Audit Overlay to relevant land, makes changes to the
General Residential Zone Schedule 1, and rezones various lots of
land to reflect preferred use and guide built form. The amendment
enables implementation of the Knox Ferntree Gully Village Structure
Plan, May 2014, giving effect to the land use and design strategies
and objectives for the Village.
163
APPENDIX THREE: IMPORTANT STATE AMENDMENTS SINCE LAST REVIEW
VC82 29 AUG 2011 Amends Clause 52.32 to identify locations where a Wind energy
facility is prohibited, include additional application requirements and
permit the use and development of an anemometer for more than
three years. Amends Clause 37.07 to prohibit a Wind energy facility.
Amends Clause 19.01 and Clause 52.32 to reference the updated
Policy and planning guidelines for development of Wind energy
facilities in Victoria (August 2011), and removes the current
guidelines from the list of incorporated documents in Clause 81.01.
Amends Clause 36.03 to clarify the condition that relates to land
described in the National Parks Act 1975.
VC83 18 NOV 2011 Introduces a new bushfire planning policy in the SPPF to replace
Clause 13.05; Introduces a new Bushfire Management Overlay
(BMO) to replace the Wildfire Management Overlay at Clause 44.06;
Introduces a new particular provision for Bushfire Protection at
Clause 52.47 that applies objectives, standards and decision
guidelines under the provisions of the BMO; Introduces a new
particular provision at Clause 52.48 that consolidates and updates
planning permit exemptions for bushfire protection purposes (the
Interim Measures at Clause 52.43 have been amended to only apply
to Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme); Amends Clauses 42.01, 42.02,
42.03, 44.01, 44.02, 52.16 and 52.17 to address vegetation removal
when creating defendable space and reducing the risk from bushfire;
Introduces a range of consequential changes that include defining
defendable space, changing WMO references to BMO and updating
wildfire references to bushfire.
VC88 20 JAN 2012 Amends the definition for Restricted retail premises in Clause 74 to
expand the types of goods that can be sold; Deletes the land use
term for a Lighting shop from Clauses 74 and 75; Amends Clauses
33.01, 33.03, 34.03 and 34.04 to remove floor space restrictions
related to Restricted retail premises.
VC90 5 JUN 2012 Changes the VPP to introduce a new Clause 45.09 – Parking
Overlay. Changes the VPP and all planning schemes to amend
Clause 52.06 – Car Parking and amends Clauses 54.03 and 55.03 to
remove references to car parking rates and design. Amends Clause
37.05 of the VPP and the Melbourne planning scheme to align
references to sub-clause numbers between the new Clause 52.06
and Clause 37.05.
VC95 19 APR 2013 The amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and
all planning schemes by amending Clauses 18, 52.06 and 55.03.
The amendment changes all planning schemes by deleting the
schedule to Clause 52.06.
The amendment changes the VPP and the Melbourne Planning
Scheme by deleting the parking precinct plan from the schedule to
Clause 81.01; replacing Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay with a new
164
Clause 45.09 and inserting schedules to the overlay.
VC100 15 JUL 2013 The amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and
all planning schemes to introduce reformed zones.
Amends Clause 32.03 Low Density Residential Zone and schedules
to 10 planning schemes to specify a minimum lot size for land
connected to reticulated sewerage. Amends Clause 32.04 Mixed Use
Zone and schedule to 53 planning schemes and Clause 32.05
Township Zone and schedule to 52 planning schemes to align them
with the three residential zones introduced by Amendment V8.
Amends Clause 33.01 Industrial 1 Zone and schedule to 73 planning
schemes, Clause 33.02 Industrial 2 Zone and introduces a new
schedule to 16 planning schemes and Clause 33.03 Industrial 3
Zone and schedule to 53 planning schemes to remove the default
500 square metre floor area cap for an Office use and to allow a local
cap to be specified. Amends Clause 33.03 Industrial 3 Zone to allow
a supermarket up to 1800sqm and associated shops without a
permit, if conditions are met.
Introduces a new Clause 34.01 Commercial 1 Zone and Clause
34.02 Commercial 2 Zone to the VPP. Replaces Clause 34.01
Business 1 Zone, Clause 34.02 Business 2 Zone and Clause 34.05
Business 5 Zone and schedules with the new Commercial 1 Zone
and schedule in planning schemes. Replaces 34.03 Business 3 Zone
and 34.04 Business 4 Zone and schedules with the new Commercial
2 Zone in planning schemes.
Makes consequential changes to Clauses 15 and 17 of the State
Planning Policy Framework, Clauses 52, 54, 55, 56 and 57 of the
Particular Provisions and to other zones and overlays.
Amends the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme by rezoning three
Footscray properties in the port environs from Business 3 to Special
Use Zone - Schedule 3.
VC104 22 AUG 2013 The amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions and
planning schemes by amending Clause 32.07 - Residential Growth
Zone, Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone and Clause 32.09 -
Neighbourhood Residential Zone to include transitional provisions to
exempt an existing application to construct or extend a residential
development of four storeys from the requirements of clause 55
gazetted in Amendment VC100.
Amending Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone to
include transitional provisions ensuring that approved development is
not prohibited from being subdivided (Clause 32.09-2) and that
existing applications lodged, but not yet decided, are not subject to
the maximum number of dwellings (Clause 32.09-3) and maximum
building height provisions (Clause 32.09-8).
Amending Clause 32.01 - Residential 1 Zone and Clause 32.02 -
Residential 2 Zone to update the reference for development
exempted from Clause 55 from four to five storeys to be consistent
with other residential zones.
Amending Clause 34.01 - Commercial 1 Zone to ensure that
165
neighbourhood and site description and design response plans are
provided for residential development subject to Clause 55 and to
delete an unnecessary reference to precinct structure plans.
VC103 5 SEP 2013 The amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and
planning schemes to introduce reformed rural zones. It amends
Clause 35.03 – Rural Living Zone, Clause 35.04 – Green Wedge
Zone, Clause 35.05 – Green Wedge A Zone, Clause 35.06 – Rural
Conservation Zone and schedules to 49 planning schemes, Clause
35.07 – Farming Zone and Clause 35.08 – Rural Activity Zone.
Makes consequential changes to Clause 11 and Clause 16 of the
State Planning Policy Framework to support the reformed rural
zones.
Amends Clause 57 of the Particular Provisions to align with the
provisions of the reformed rural zones and to give affect to changes
applying to green wedge land.
Amends Clause 62 of the General Provisions to exempt crop support
and protection structures from permit requirements.
Amends Clause 74 relating to the definitions of host farm, rural
industry and primary produce sales.
VC105 20 DEC 2013 The amendment implements reforms to Victoria’s native vegetation
and biodiversity provisions by:
Amending Clause 12.01 (Biodiversity) to reflect the new ‘no net loss’ approach rather than the previous ‘net gain’ approach.
Amending Clause 52.16 (Native vegetation precinct plan) to reflect the intent of the native vegetation and biodiversity reform package; and
Amending Clause 52.17 (Native vegetation) to rationalise information requirements, implement the new risk-based assessment pathways, include a simplified approach for applications under a low-risk based pathway and streamline the determination of offset requirements.
Amending Clause 66.02-2 (Native Vegetation - Referral and Notice Provisions) to require the class of application in the high risk pathway as defined in the document ‘Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines’ (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013) be referred to the Secretary to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries as a recommending referral authority; and
Amending Clause 81.01 (Table of incorporated documents in this scheme) to replace ‘Victoria’s Native Vegetation – Framework for Action’ with a new incorporated document ‘Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines’ (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013).
The amendment also updates outdated references to the
Department of Sustainability and Environment to reflect the
department’s new name, the Department of Environment and
Primary Industries in relevant clauses.
VC106 30 MAY 2014 The Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and all planning schemes are
amended to recognise Plan Melbourne and Victoria’s regional growth
plans by:
166
Inserting a new clause 9, which requires any references in the planning scheme to Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 Million (Department of Planning and Community Development, 2008) to be disregarded and requires planning and responsible authorities to consider and apply Plan Melbourne.
Deleting clauses 11.04-1 to 11.04-5 in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), which set out planning objectives and strategies from Melbourne 2030, and introducing new clauses 11.04-1 to 11.04-6 which set out objectives and strategies taken from the vision in Plan Melbourne. Existing clauses 11.04-6 to 11.04-8 have been renumbered as 11.04-7 to 11.04-9 respectively.
Inserting clauses 11.06 – 11.13 in the SPPF which set out the objectives and strategies of Victoria’s eight regional growth plans.
Removing references to Melbourne 2030, Melbourne 2030: A planning update Melbourne @ 5 Million, the Activity Centres and Principal Public Transport Network Plan, 2010 and Ready for Tomorrow – a Blueprint for Regional and Rural Victoria from the following clauses in the State Planning Policy Framework:
clause 11 (Settlement);
clause 16 (Housing);
clause 17 (Economic Development);
clause 18 (Transport); and
clause 19 (Infrastructure).
Deleting the Activity Centres and Principal Public Transport Network Plan, 2010 from the list of incorporated documents in clause 81.01.
VC116 1 JUL 2014 Amendment VC116 changes the VPP and all planning schemes by
replacing the User Guide and Clauses 52.04, 52.06, 52.35, 54, 55
and 56 to delete references to the Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2
Zone and Residential 3 Zone; deletes Clause 32.01 - Residential 1
Zone from the VPP and 24 planning schemes; deletes Clause 32.02
- Residential 2 Zone from the VPP and 6 planning schemes; deletes
Clause 32.06 - Residential 3 Zone from the VPP and 3 planning
schemes; amends Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone to
include the following words “shown on the planning scheme map as
GRZ, R1Z, R2Z and R3Z with a number (if shown)” in the VPP and
59 planning schemes; amends Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan
Overlay to delete references to the Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2
Zone and Residential 3 Zone from the VPP and 24 planning
schemes; amends Clause 43.04 – Development Plan Overlay to
delete references to the Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone and
Residential 3 Zone from the VPP and 71 planning schemes; amends
Clause 43.05 – Neighbourhood Character Overlay to delete
references to the Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone and
Residential 3 Zone from the VPP and 14 planning schemes; amends
Clause 57 to delete references to the Residential 1 Zone, Residential
2 Zone and Residential 3 Zone from the VPP and 17 planning
schemes; changes the Ararat, Ballarat, Banyule, Brimbank, Darebin,
Greater Geelong, Greater Shepparton, Knox, Latrobe, Maribyrnong,
Moonee Valley, Moorabool, Moreland, Nillumbik, Port Phillip,
Southern Grampians, Whitehorse and Yarra planning schemes by
introducing Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone and inserting
Schedules to the General Residential Zone which replicate
167
Schedules for any of the deleted Residential 1, Residential 2 and
Residential 3 Zones; changes the Cardinia, Frankston, Greater
Geelong, Kingston, Melton, Mornington Peninsula and Whittlesea
planning schemes by inserting or amending Schedules to the
General Residential Zone to replicate Schedules for any of the
deleted Residential 1, Residential 2 and Residential 3 Zones.
VC109 31 JUL 2014 The amendment changes the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP)
and all Victorian planning schemes by amending:
Clause 44.06 ‘Bushfire Management Overlay’ (BMO) to move the application requirements to Clause 52.47 and include a new mandatory condition for bushfire bunkers.
Clause 52.17 ‘Native Vegetation’ to enable the clearing of native vegetation to be undertaken by private landholders on Crown land with the written permission of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries for the purposes of maintaining wild dog exclusion fences.
Clause 52.47 ‘Planning for bushfire’ to provide approved and alternative bushfire safety measures for new single dwellings, replacement or extension to an existing dwelling and other buildings.
Clause 52.48 ‘Bushfire Protection: Exemptions’ to provide exemptions for the provision of defendable space for a dwelling approved under the BMO.
Clause 66 ‘Referral and Notice Provisions’ to change the referral authority status for relevant fire authorities for some development from determining to recommending referral authority.
VC113 31 JUL 2014 The amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and
all planning schemes by amending Clause 52.32 – Wind energy
facility to enable minor amendments to be made to a Wind energy
facility planning permit issued prior to 15 March 2011.
VC120 4 SEP 2014 The Amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions and all
planning schemes by introducing a new Clause 52.43 Live music and
entertainment noise.
VC114 19 SEP 2014 The amendment changes the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and
all planning schemes by :
Introducing a new Clause 90 to create a new section in the VPP for the VicSmart planning assessment provisions.
Introducing a new Clause 91 which sets out the planning assessment process for VicSmart applications.
Introducing a new Clause 92 which sets out the classes of application that are a State VicSmart application and the relevant provision of Clause 93 that contains the information requirements and decision guidelines that apply to each class of State VicSmart application.
Introducing a new Clause 93 which sets out the information requirements and decision guidelines for each class of State VicSmart application.
Introducing a new Clause 94 to provide the ability to specify classes of local VicSmart applications and the relevant clause or schedule that contains the information requirements and decision guidelines that apply to each class.
Introducing a new Clause 95 which sets out the information requirements and decision guidelines for each class of local
168
VicSmart application.
Amending the Schedules to Clause 61.01 to specify the Chief Executive Officer of the council as the responsible authority for deciding a VicSmart application in the planning scheme. For the French Island and Sandstone Island Planning Scheme, Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme and Alpine Resorts Planning Scheme specify the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority for deciding a VicSmart application in the planning scheme.
Making consequential changes to the VPP User Guide to recognise the new VicSmart provisions and to turn off consideration of Clause 65 decision guidelines for a VicSmart application.
The amendment changes the Ballarat Planning scheme by:
Introducing a schedule to Clause 94 to create local VicSmart classes of application for buildings and works and subdivision affected by Clause 42.02-2 Design and Development Overlay Schedules 1 and 3-16 (inclusive).
Introducing a schedule to Clause 95 to create information requirements and decision guidelines for the local VicSmart classes of application.
The amendment changes the Greater Geelong Planning scheme by:
Introducing a schedule to Clause 94 to create additional local VicSmart classes of application for the following applications under the Activity Centre Zone:
Boundary realignment
Subdivision of an existing building or car space
Subdivision of land into two lots
Buildings and works up to $250,000
Advertising signs
Reducing car parking spaces
Licensed premises.
Introducing a schedule to Clause 95 to create information requirements and decision guidelines for the local VicSmart classes of application:
Buildings and works up to $250,000
Licensed premises.
The State information requirements and decision guidelines set out in Clause 93 are used for the other local VicSmart classes of application.
