discussion paper submission introduction · 2017. 5. 22. · minute neighbourhood” ideal), •...

Discussion Paper Submission

Introduction Please find following key information about making a submission.

Who can make a submission?

Anyone is able to comment and make submissions on the Plan Melbourne refresh discussion paper.

How will submissions be used?

We want a Plan Melbourne to reflect the community’s views, particularly in relation to housing affordability and diversity, energy efficiency and climate change. All submissions received will be reviewed and inform Plan Melbourne 2016.

Will submissions be publicly available?

Written submissions will be publicly available and will be able to be read by others, unless you have requested and been granted confidentiality status.

Why do I have to register to make a submission or comment online?

The information provided in the registration form will help us analyse the responses and help us know which issues are of concern to residents in which areas of Melbourne or to particular community groups.

Can I provide a submission in another format?

Given the high volume of submissions anticipated it is strongly preferred that the online form or the downloadable template be used. This will ensure the most effective evaluation of the issues raised in submissions.

How do I make a submission?

You will need to register to make a submission. Submissions and comments will close at 5.00pm AEDST Friday 18 December 2015. Once registered, there are two ways to make a submission:

• Complete the online submission form

• Upload your submission using this submission template. Note that the preferred format is MSWord,

As part of making a submission, you will need to agree to the privacy collection notice and statement of confidentiality. These are outlined in both the online submission and upload forms.

Do I have to respond to all of the questions in the submission form for my views to be heard?

Not at all. You are welcome to respond to as many, or as few, of the questions on the Plan Melbourne refresh discussion paper as you would like.

http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/submissions/survey_tools/online-submission-form

http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/submissions

Plan Melbourne Refresh: Discussion Paper Submission

Can I comment on other areas not addressed in the Plan Melbourne refresh discussion Paper?

This refresh is not intended to comprehensively revise Plan Melbourne 2014. It builds on the extensive work and consultation underpinning Plan Melbourne 2014. Much of Plan Melbourne 2014 enjoys bi-partisan support and will not change.

The Plan Melbourne refresh discussion paper and consultation process is asking Melburnians to take another look at particular aspects of Plan Melbourne 2014 that need revision such as the key issues of housing supply, diversity and affordability, and climate change and will reflect the Government’s transport network priorities.

of 29


Submission Template Chapter 2: Growth, challenges, fundamental principles and key concepts

1. The discussion paper includes the option (option 5, page 16) that Plan Melbourne betterdefine the key opportunities and challenges for developing Melbourne and outlines some keypoints for considerations in Box 1. Are there any other opportunities or challenges that weshould be aware of?

Utilize Previous Planning Works. Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct has been the subject for over 40 Years of being rezoned into land suitable for residential purposes. This area includes;

On the Eastern side (City/Melbourne Side) of the Melton Township, from between Toolern Creek extending through to the natural boundary of Kororoit Creek and including from Melton Highway in the South through to the Northern boundary of Finchs Road

Melton Area 05 was recommended by the GAA in 2011 as “to be considered as part of the proposed Biennial review of the UGB”. Source Growth Areas Logical Inclusions Review Process 2011 Preliminary Assessment Report West Region: Wyndham and Melton (Excluding Diggers Rest) August 2011. Page 91 of Report

Rezoning this area either via a Biennial Review (howsoever named) or via another process is vital to continue the work of the 2011 Logical Inclusions Process. This area appears to be very much ideal land for “Affordable Housing” – predominately flat with many services in place nearby including schools that are underutilized according to the

This area has a natural boundary of Kororoit Creek which offers the potential to develop wonderful tracks amidst spectacular beauty alongside at no cost to the Government.

2. The discussion paper includes the option (option 6, page 18) that the United NationsSustainable Development Goals be included in Plan Melbourne 2016. Do you agree with thisidea? If so, how should the goals be incorporated into Plan Melbourne 2016? Choose oneoption:

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Please explain your response:

No Government can afford to use just one side of a freeway and highway.

We need to utilize existing resources to their fullest capacity which includes development on both sides of existing infrastructure, including both Melton Highway and Western Freeway at Melton.

of 29

removed


3. The discussion paper includes the option (option 7, page 18) to lock down the existing urban growth boundary and modify the action (i.e. the action under Initiative 6.1.1.1 in Plan Melbourne 2014) to reflect this. Do you agree that there should be a permanent urban growth boundary based on the existing boundary? Choose one option:



A lockdown can inhibit future flexibility in planning and has the potential to encapsulate errors and mistakes. There is a current mindset that people want to live in little cubicles, this mindset may alter.

4. The discussion paper includes the option (option 8, page 18) that Plan Melbourne 2016 should more clearly articulate the values of green wedge and peri- urban areas to be protected and safeguarded. How can Plan Melbourne 2016 better articulate the values of green wedge and peri-urban areas?

The inspected Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct on 17th June 2014 and said, “Green wedge needs to occur, but why does it need to occur here?” He was looking at the relative flatness of this land that remains largely unsuitable for green wedge activities due to the lack of affordable irrigation. The has consistently offered support and assistance in rezoning green wedge land in Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct into residential land meeting with our cohesive interest group many times.

5. The discussion paper includes the option (option 9, page 18) to remove the concept of an Integrated Economic Triangle and replace it with a high-level 2050 concept map for Melbourne (i.e. a map that shows the Expanded Central City, National Employment Clusters, Metropolitan Activity Centres, State-Significant Industrial Precincts, Transport Gateways, Health and Education Precincts and Urban Renewal Precincts). What elements should be included in a 2050 concept map for Melbourne?

Low Cost housing element

of 29

removed

removed


6. The discussion paper includes the option (option 10, page 18) that the concept of Melbourne as a polycentric city (i.e. a city with many centres) with 20-minute neighbourhoods (i.e. the ability to meet your everyday (non-work) needs locally, primarily within a 20-minute walk) be better defined. Do the definitions adequately clarify the concepts? Choose one option:



Also the concept of the 20 minute drive to work should be included as well as the 20 minute walk to non-work activities – both of which would be achievable by including Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct into the UGB. Some future 20 minute NEW employment opportunities include (approximately); Ravenswood – the new jail is expected to provide 300 jobs for construction and then 300 ongoing jobs with the potential for a further jail afterwards. Tullamarine Airport anticipated expansion will require a major Freight Terminal which appears to be within the 20 minute vicinity of Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct Both a new Masters and Bunnings to be created within this 20 minute Criterion. Obviously there are also current and ongoing other job opportunities within the City of Melton

7. The discussion paper includes options (options 11-17, pages 23 to 27) that identify housing, climate change, people place and identity and partnerships with local government as key concepts that need to be incorporated into Plan Melbourne 2016. Do you support the inclusion of these as key concepts in Plan Melbourne 2016?



I support the inclusion of key concepts. Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct delivers an opportunity for affordable housing which is essential to reduce stress on the public purse that is caused by unaffordable housing. Partnerships are needed to achieve a result of affordable housing and Local Government should be included in this partnership.

of 29


8. Any other comments about chapter 2 (growth, challenges, fundamental principles and key concepts)?

We would like to request your assistance to have MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct come within the Urban Growth Boundary, possibly via a Biennial Review. In brief we believe this will;

• The 2011 Logical Inclusions Process concluded “Melton Area 05 should be considered as part of the proposed Biennial Review,” - this review has not as yet been undertaken,

• Utilize previous extensive works done by City of Melton in their 2005 Township Strategy and Structure Plan, the 1997 Plan and even as far back as 1975 Township Plan (prepared nearly 40 years ago),

• Fully capitalize on existing resources in Melton (some of which are currently underutilized (

• The majority of the land holders in this area have a cohesive wish to come within the UGB,

• New future employment opportunities within 20 minutes from the Precinct (“20 Minute Neighbourhood” ideal),

• The land is unsuitable for intensive farming as there is a lack of immediately affordable available irrigation water,

• Potentially establish a wonderful park along Kororoit Creek at no cost to Government,

• Explicit interest has already been made by Residential Developers to Landholders should this area be rezoned.

LAND THAT MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct are requesting to be included in the UGB There is an aberration that our area remains Green Wedge when so much Melton Town Planning history –from 40 years ago till date – consistently shows this land would be rezoned Residential. Our common interest group named Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct, consists of approximately 20 landholders, who are geographically based upon the 2005 Melton Strategy and Structure Plan.

On the Eastern side (City/Melbourne Side) of the Melton Township, from between Toolern Creek extending through to the natural boundary of Kororoit Creek and including from Melton Highway in the South through to the Northern boundary of Finchs Road.

of 29

removed


Figure 1 – MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct As Per Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan as provided by Shire of Melton 2005 The entire salmon pink area has been consistently and clearly supported by the City of Melton as being suitable for development and being part of the future direction of Melton. History of this Precinct The City of Melton was identified as a “Satellite City” in the 1970’s, which saw Melton experience rapid population Growth in the 70’s and 80’s. The Precinct has been clearly identified as being part of the future direction of Melton. The City of Melton Council supported the Precinct for development and MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct was included in Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan 2005 (please refer attached) as being suitable for rezoning. More recently Council prepared a submission to further support the Precinct to be included in the “Logical Inclusions” 2011, noting that

“this northern growth front provided a particular opportunity to improve transport networks through the whole northern section of Melton Township”.

The fundamental principles of growth identified in the 1970’s Satellite City plan remain relatively unchanged. It was disappointing however that the GAA felt the need for “A more detailed investigation” of the area in 2011 when such an extensive plan being The Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan was carried out in 2005, and given that Council was supportive of the Precinct.

of 29


The GAA commented in 2011 as follows; “The remainder of Melton Area 5 (of which our Residents Group land belongs and is

named after) is of significant scale, and is not considered appropriate for inclusion as part

of the Logical Inclusions Review Process.”

“A more detailed investigation of the issues involved with any potential urban development

in the area would be required, and this would be more appropriate to be considered as

part of the proposed Biennial review of the UGB.”

“Implications for proposed Biennial Review of UGB: The remainder (majority) of land

within Melton Area 5 should be included in any such review.”*

Source Growth Areas Logical Inclusions Review Process 2011 Preliminary

Assessment Report West Region: Wyndham and Melton (Excluding Diggers Rest)

August 2011. Page 91 of Report

A majority of landholders in the MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct met together for the first time on 1.12.13 at very short notice and we have had a huge and positive cohesive response that supports the wish for rezoning. Opportunities and Constraints The area of MeltonArea05CitySide Precinct is has large rural allotments ranging in area from 8 to 32 hectares and are generally devoid of any significant trees and vegetation. This land is generally flat to mildly undulating land with minimal natural constraints with the exception of the constraint by the Kororoit Creek which forms the boundary on the eastern side of the Precinct. The Kororoit Creek drops well below the tablelands that surround it. The area in question appears to be readily able to be integrated with the subdivision pattern to the south, and would appear to require only a relatively small extension to the north-eastern corner of the township. The site appears unconstrained until the natural boundary of Kororoit Creek. It appears that the area can be serviced. The land has traditionally been used for low value cereal cropping and grazing. The lack of immediate irrigation water, at an affordable cost, makes the land unsuitable for most

of 29


intensive farming uses. We believe the Precinct already has sewer near Ryans Lane and we believe it will be able to service a number of houses. We believe there is a major town water pipeline in The Precinct abutting Melton Hwy. Upon extensive investigations regarding Melbourne Airport, we have been advised that our lands are outside of the Melbourne Airport environ layout zones. There consistently are developers perusing this area and interest has already been made explicit to a number of landholders. TWENTY MINUTE NEIGHBOURHOOD There are some exciting opportunities for newly created employment that will fall within the “20 minute” criterion;

• Ravenswood – the new jail is expected to provide 300 jobs for construction and then 300 ongoing.

• Tullamarine Airport anticipated expansion will require a major Freight Terminal which appears to be within the 20 minute vicinity of MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct.

• A new Masters and Bunnings are being created within the 20 minute criterion. Obviously there also are current and ongoing other job opportunities within the City of Melton. ROADS AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE Given the very considerable amount of money already invested in infrastructure being the Western Freeway passing through Melton and the Melton Highway leading into Melton, it is critical this area should be incorporated into the Urban Growth Boundary. No Government can afford to build important roadways and utilize just one side of them. The huge costs of infrastructure, undertaken / to be / or planned for the area, dictate that all available opportunities for infrastructure use, must be maximized to the full, be it residential, commercial or industrial use. The Shire of Melton has prepared the Melton Strategy and Structure Plan 2005, to build on Council’s long term vision for a sustainable, connected and prosperous Melton Township. KOROROIT CREEK Titles along Kororoit Creek confer riparian rights which are typically to the centre of the creek meaning that the general public would be trespassing if they were to walk along the creek. Kororoit Creek drops a number of metres below the surrounding tablelands. There are exceptional river red gums along Kororoit Creek in the Precinct which provide spectacular scenery for the area. It is possible to walk considerable distances along Kororoit

of 29


Creek in the MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct and feel like you are in the outback of Australia where no houses would be visible. The sub-division of the Precinct will enable the relevant government bodies the right to acquire land fronting Kororoit Creek at no cost to government. Obtaining the legal right to the Kororoit Creek frontage should be a priority in the State Government's own right so that the general public can access places of exceptional natural geography. Visits by the public to the Kororoit Creek would undoubtedly help many people to maintain and improve their feeling of wellbeing. Walking tracks, cycling paths and parks can take a number of years to get established and recognised by the public as a place worthy of visiting and using. With the tremendous growth that Plan Melbourne expects by 2050, it is imperative that places of significant natural beauty be made available to the public at the earliest opportunity to help maintain the mental health of the population. Including the Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct in the Urban Growth Boundary will bring forward the development of the Precinct which will allow the public to escape the density of everyday living to access one of Western Melbourne's exceptional natural features. We have attached some photographs of the stunning Kororoit Creek and we would welcome a site inspection of the Kororoit Creek by you to showcase the scenic beauty of the area. Invitation Our development group ‘MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct’ would like to invite you to come to visit our area - contact . In line with the Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan 2005, we are attempting to get MeltonArea05CitySidePrecinct within the Urban Growth Boundary and believe it is mutually beneficial for the State of Victoria as they would be potentially be able to get access to the Kororoit Creek for no cost. We are requesting that you undertake the Biennial Review (regardless of the name applied) that we have been anticipating in order to facilitate this. IN SUMMARY The above is forwarded to you in the belief that the facts contained are honest and to the best of our knowledge, and we thank you for the opportunity to submit the above. We are available to be contacted on or other details as provided should you wish to discuss the above, or should you wish to come out to visit Kororoit Creek.

of 29

removed

removed


These stunning photographs of the magnificent Kororoit Creek have been taken during different Seasons, with different water levels. The magnificent trees are on display. The final two pictures only partially begin to show the significant drop from the tablelands that surround the Creek.

of 29


of 29


Chapter 3: Delivering jobs and investment

9. The discussion paper includes the option (option 20, page 30) to revise the Delivering Jobs and Investment chapter in Plan Melbourne 2014 to ensure the significance and roles of the National Employment Clusters as places of innovation and knowledge-based employment are clear. How can Plan Melbourne 2016 better articulate the significance and roles of the National Employment Clusters as places of innovation and knowledge-based employment?

Ensure roads are able to have free flowing traffic at all times as stop/start gridlock adds considerable cost to businesses. Additionally having the option of employment within 20 minutes of home as per Question 6 should assist in reducing traffic gridlock.

10. The discussion paper includes two options (page 30) relating to National Employment Clusters, being:

Option 21A: Focus planning for National Employment Clusters on core institutions and businesses

Option 21B: Take a broader approach to planning for National Employment Clusters that looks beyond the core institutions and businesses

Which option do you prefer?

Option 21A Option 21B

Please explain why you have chosen your preferred option:

Core Institutions will always attract further employment opportunities to support them.

11. The discussion paper includes the option (option 22, page 30) to broaden the East Werribee National Employment Cluster to call it the Werribee National Employment Cluster in order to encompass the full range of activities and employment activities that make up Werribee. This could include the Werribee Activity Centre and the Werribee Park Tourism Precinct. Do you agree with broadening the East Werribee Cluster? Choose one option:


Why?

Werribee National Employment cluster makes logical sense and creates employment locally and

of 29


keeps much of the money generated locally in the community – and further taking the pressure off roads and transport The Shire of Melton in 2005 produced a Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan identifying Melton as a Satellite City. Councils appear to support National Employment Clusters when undertaking significant works such as producing this invaluable document – (attachment).

12. The discussion paper includes the option (option 23, page 30) to broaden the Dandenong South National Employment Cluster to call it the Dandenong National Employment Cluster in order to encompass the full range of activities and employment activities that make up Dandenong. This could include the Dandenong Metropolitan Activity Centre and Chisholm Institute of TAFE. Do you agree with broadening the Dandenong South National Employment Cluster? Choose one option:


Why?

Dandenong National Employment Cluster again makes logical sense and creates employment locally and keeps much of the money generated locally in the district – further taking the pressure off roads and transport.

13. The discussion paper includes options (options 24 to 30, pages 33 and 34) that consider the designation of activity centres and criteria for new activity centres. Do you have any comments on the designation of activity centres or the criteria for new activity centres as outlined in the discussion paper?

Previous planning policies have developed “Activity Centres” and generally they make logical sense and create employment locally, taking pressure off roads and public transport “Activity Centres” were referenced in the 2005 Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan

14. The discussion paper includes the option (option 31, page 35) to evaluate the range of planning mechanisms available to protect strategic agricultural land. What types of agricultural land and agricultural activities need to be protected and how could the planning system better protect them?

Small areas that exist of high class market garden land should be protected but only land that contains very good soil and is suitable for market gardens close to Melbourne and that has access to immediate irrigation water at an affordable cost.

of 29


15. The discussion paper includes the option (option 32, page 36) to implement the outcomes of the Extractive Industries Taskforce through the planning scheme, including Regional Growth Plans, to affirm that extractive industries resources are protected to provide an economic supply of materials for construction and road industries. Do you have any comments in relation to extractive industries?

At the end of the mining activity the land needs to be cleaned up and revegetated.

16. Any other comments about chapter 3 (delivering jobs and investment)?

of 29


Chapter 4: A more connected Melbourne

17. The discussion paper includes the option (option 34, page 42) to include the Principal Public Transport Network in Plan Melbourne 2016. Do you agree that the Principal Public Transport Network should inform land use choices and decisions? Choose one option:


Why?

It makes logical sense to have a transport network that gives the ability to leave the car at home.

18. The discussion paper includes the option (option 35, page 43) to incorporate references to Active Transport Victoria (which aims to increase participation and safety among cyclists and pedestrians) in Plan Melbourne 2016. How should walking and cycling networks influence and integrate with land use?

Cycling networks especially among heavy traffic need to be widened not roadways, but on footpaths side of roads for safety, with cyclists paying fees to be allocated towards construction. Kororoit Creek from Melton Highway to Finch’s Road Melton represents an opportunity, not yet undertaken allowing a beautiful link between future residential land and the ability to cycle along outstanding scenery to link into existing transport.

19. Any other comments about chapter 4 (a more connected Melbourne)?

of 29


Chapter 5: Housing

20. The discussion paper includes the option (option 36A, page 46) to establish a 70/30 target where established areas provide 70 per cent of Melbourne’s new housing supply and greenfield growth areas provide 30 per cent. Do you agree with establishing a 70/30 target for housing supply? Choose one option:


Why?

Established areas are being transformed due to demolition works and then building units that are not in keeping with the amenity of the area. There appears to be more optimal living, in an area such as Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct that has over 40 years of planning history as being suitable for residential development than in demolishing existing areas and building against existing amenities.

21. What, if any, planning reforms are necessary to achieve a 70/30 target?

Melton Area 05 was recommended by the GAA in 2011 as “to be considered as part of the proposed Biennial review of the UGB”. Source Growth Areas Logical Inclusions Review Process 2011 Preliminary Assessment Report West Region: Wyndham and Melton (Excluding Diggers Rest) August 2011. Page 91 of Report A Biennial Review (howsoever named) is vital to continue the work of the 2011 Logical Inclusions Process in order to achieve targets. Established areas are being transformed due to demolition works and then building units that are not in keeping with the amenity of the area. There appears to be more optimal living, in an area such as Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct that has over 40 years of planning history as being suitable for residential development than in demolishing existing areas and building against existing amenities.

22. The discussion paper includes the option (option 36B, page 46) to investigate a mechanism to manage the sequence and density of the remaining Precinct Structure Plans based on land supply needs. Do you agree with this idea? Choose one option:


Why?

of 29


We already have the mechanism to deal with the release of Precinct Structure Plans in Metropolitan Planning Authority

23. The discussion paper includes the option (option 36C, page 46) to focus metropolitan planning on unlocking housing supply in established areas, particularly within areas specifically targeted for growth and intensification. Do you agree with this idea? Choose one option:


Why?

Established areas are being transformed due to demolition works and then building units that are not in keeping with the amenity of the area. There appears to be more optimal living, in an area such as Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct that has over 40 years of planning history as being suitable for residential development than in demolishing existing areas and building against existing amenities

24. The discussion paper includes options (option 37, page 50) to better define and communicate Melbourne’s housing needs by either:

Option 37A: Setting housing targets for metropolitan Melbourne and each sub-region relating to housing diversity, supply and affordability.

Option 37B: Developing a metropolitan Housing Strategy that includes a Housing Plan.

Which option do you prefer? Choose one option:

Option 37A Option 37B Other

Why?

More money should not be required to be spent on “Housing Plans” if Councils have already given the direction in their “Planning Schemes”.

25. The discussion paper includes the option (option 38, page 52) to introduce a policy statement in Plan Melbourne 2016 to support population and housing growth in defined locations and acknowledge that some areas within defined locations will require planning protection based on their valued character. How could Plan Melbourne 2016 clarify those locations in which higher scales of change are supported?

of 29


Strongest support for defined locations should come from current Green Wedge areas that have poor soils and are relatively flat. These are the best areas for affordable housing.

26. The discussion paper includes the option (option 39, page 52) to clarify the direction to ‘protect the suburbs’. How could Plan Melbourne 2016 clarify the direction to protect Melbourne and its suburbs from inappropriate development?

Councils have included strategies in their Planning Schemes to clarify direction to “Protect the Suburbs” from inappropriate development.

27. The discussion paper includes the option (option 40, page 56) to clarify the action to apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to at least 50 per cent of residential land by:

Option 40A: Deleting the action and replacing it with a direction that clarifies how the residential zones should be applied to respect valued character and deliver housing diversity.

Option 40B: Retain at least 50 per cent as a guide but expand the criteria to enable variations between municipalities.

Which option do you prefer? Choose one option:

Option 40A Option 40B Other

Why?

Rather than putting bulldozers through whole or large majorities of streets, there appears to remain a need to retain housing that is adequate to today’s needs thereby retaining character of the area. Opening up further affordable housing opportunities in Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct which is close to Melbourne removes the pressure of altering character of the area.

28. The discussion paper includes the option (option 42, page 58) to include an action in Plan Melbourne 2016 to investigate how the building and planning system can facilitate housing that readily adapts to the changing needs of households over the life of a dwelling. In what other ways can Plan Melbourne 2016 support greater housing diversity?

Plan Melbourne 2016 can direct Councils to issue permits to people to extend and /or alter houses to accommodate families changing needs.

of 29


29. A number of options are outlined in the discussion paper (page 58) to improve housing affordability, including:

Option 45A: Consider introducing planning tools that mandate or facilitate or provide incentives to increase social and affordable housing supply.

Option 45B: Evaluate the affordable housing initiative pilot for land sold by government to determine whether to extend this to other suitable land sold by government.

Option 45C: Identify planning scheme requirements that could be waived or reduced without compromising the amenity of social and affordable housing or neighbouring properties.

What other ideas do you have for how Plan Melbourne 2016 can improve housing affordability?

Plan Melbourne 2016 can improve housing affordability by not locking up large quantities of land that is of low grade agricultural land. Also Plan Melbourne 2016 should be strongly considering land currently zoned Green Wedge that has over 40 years of planning history that supports its’ rezoning to residential such as Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct to be rezoned directly or via a process of the promised Biennial Review. There is a reason that such land has been constantly regarded as suitable and that funds have been spent on showing this via works such as the Melton Township Strategy and Structure Plan as provided by the Shire of Melton 2005.

30. Any other comments about chapter 5 (housing)?

Governments and Councils need to be more flexible in rezoning land and not drag out time required for plans/submissions/etc. which adds a huge burden to developers who need to recover “Holding Costs” to stay in business. These holding costs are either absorbed by developers or are passed onto purchasers which decreases housing affordability.

of 29


Chapter 6: A more resilient and environmentally sustainable Melbourne

31. The discussion paper includes the option (option 46, page 69) to introduce Strategic Environmental Principles in Plan Melbourne 2016 to guide implementation of environment, climate change and water initiatives. Do you agree with the inclusion of Strategic Environmental Principles in Plan Melbourne 2016? Choose one option:


Why?

Environmental Principles are already in place within Planning Departments. Adding more Environmental Principles is immensely costly and further escalates housing affordability. Climate change principles and water initiatives are already in place in planning schemes.

32. The discussion paper includes the option (option 47, page 72) to review policy and hazard management planning tools (such as overlays) to ensure the planning system responds to climate change challenges. Do you agree with this idea? Choose one option:


Why?

The options are already in place and this work would just be repetitive. Available resources would be better directed towards undertaking the proposed Biennial Review as mentioned in the GAA 2011 Logical Inclusions.

33. The discussion paper includes options (options 48 and 49, page72) to update hazard mapping to promote resilience and avoid unacceptable risk, and update periodically the planning system and supporting legislative and policy frameworks to reflect best available climate change science and data. Do you have any comments on these options?

The options are already in place and this work would just be repetitive. Available resources would be better directed towards undertaking the proposed Biennial Review as mentioned in the GAA 2011 Logical Inclusions.

of 29


34. The discussion paper includes the option (option 50, page 73) to incorporate natural hazard management criteria into Victorian planning schemes to improve planning in areas exposed to climate change and environmental risks. Do you agree with this idea? Choose one option:


Why?

Climate change policies are already in place. Bushfire and flood management policies are also already in place and cover most or all of Victoria.

35. The discussion paper includes the option (option 51, page 75) to investigate consideration of climate change risks in infrastructure planning in the land use planning system, including consideration of an ‘infrastructure resilience test’. Do you agree that a more structured approach to consideration of climate change risks in infrastructure planning has merit? Choose one option:


Why?

The options are already in place and this work would just be repetitive and thus not required. Available resources would be better directed towards undertaking the proposed Biennial Review as mentioned in the GAA 2011 Logical Inclusions.

36. The discussion paper includes the option (option 52, page 76) to strengthen high-priority habitat corridors throughout Melbourne and its peri-urban areas to improve long-term health of key flora and fauna habitat. Do you agree with this idea? Choose one option:


Why?

The options are already in place and this work would just be repetitive and thus not required. Additionally Flora and Fauna are highly adaptable in their surroundings which is why the majority have survived to date. Available resources would be better directed towards undertaking the proposed Biennial Review as mentioned in the GAA 2011 Logical Inclusions.

of 29


37. The discussion paper includes options (options 53 and 54, pages 78 and 79) to introduce strategies to cool our city including: increasing tree canopy, vegetated ground cover and permeable surfaces; use of Water Sensitive Urban Design and irrigation; and encouraging the uptake of green roofs, facades and walls, as appropriate materials used for pavements and buildings with low heat-absorption properties. What other strategies could be beneficial for cooling our built environment?

38. The discussion paper includes the option (option 56A, page 80) to investigate opportunities in the land use planning system, such as strong supporting planning policy, to facilitate the increased uptake of renewable and low-emission energy in Melbourne and its peri-urban areas. Do you agree that stronger land use planning policies are needed to facilitate the uptake of renewable and low-emission energy? Choose one option


Why?

In the main this all appears logical. The exception is with the Coal Seam Gas projects for fear of large scale underground water contamination. It that occurred then it may well be potentially unable to be fixed over many years which would render much agricultural land unusable.

39. The discussion paper includes options (options 56B and 56C, page 80) to strengthen the structure planning process to facilitate future renewable and low-emission energy generation technologies in greenfield and urban renewal precincts and require consideration of the costs and benefits of renewable or low-emission energy options across a precinct. Do you agree that the structure planning process should facilitate the uptake of renewable and low-emission technologies in greenfield and urban renewal precincts? Choose one option:


Why?

Whilst agreeing, care must be taken to ensure these renewable and low emission technologies must not contaminate greenfield precincts.

of 29


40. The discussion paper includes the option (option 57, page 81) to take an integrated approach to planning and building to strengthen Environmentally Sustainable Design, including consideration of costs and benefits. Do you agree that an integrated planning and building approach would strengthen Environmentally Sustainable Design? Choose one option:


Why?

Too often the Environmentally Sustainable Design projects add considerable costs to developments and our greatest priority should be housing affordability. There needs to be some balance however.

41. Any other comments about chapter 6 (a more resilient and environmentally sustainable Melbourne)?

of 29


Chapter 7: New planning tools

42. The discussion paper includes options (options 58A and 58B, page 84) to evaluate whether new or existing planning tools (zones and overlays) could be applied to National Employment Clusters and urban renewal areas. Do you have any comments on the planning tools (zones and overlays) needed for National Employment Clusters and urban renewal areas?

Whilst there are already have planning tools in place, options for National Employment Clusters and Urban Renewals could be included.

43. The discussion paper includes options (options 59A and 59B, page 84) to evaluate the merits of code assessment for multi-unit development, taking into account the findings from the ‘Better Apartments’ process, to either replace ResCode with a codified process for multi-unit development or identify ResCode standards that can be codified. Do you have any comments on the merits of code assessment for multi-unit development?

Do not understand why the codified process would be considered.

44. Any other comments about chapter 7 (new planning tools)?

No

of 29


Chapter 8: Implementation

45. The discussion paper includes the option (options 1 and 61, pages 14 and 90) of Plan Melbourne being an enduring strategy with a long-term focus supported by a ‘rolling’ implementation plan. Do you agree that separating the long-term strategy from a shorter-term supporting implementation plan is a good idea?

Not really as developers will pursue the best option to provide housing affordability

46. If a separate implementation plan is developed for Plan Melbourne 2016 what will make it effective?

I do not believe it is a necessary idea.

47. Any other comments about chapter 8 (implementation)?

The above, particularly in relation to Melton Area 05 City Side Precinct is forwarded to you in the belief that the facts contained are honest and to the best of our knowledge and we thank you for the opportunity to submit the above. Please re-refer to question 8 for more details.

of 29

discussion paper submission introduction · 2017. 5. 22. · minute neighbourhood” ideal), •...

Documents