expert witness evidence - city of · pdf fileexpert witness evidence ... my evidence is based...

EXPERT WITNESS EVIDENCE MEGAMILE [WEST] & BLACKBURN ACTIVITY CENTRES UDF

PANEL HEARING FOR AMENDMENT C143, WHITEHORSE PLANNING SCHEME

MIKE SCOTT

BA(HONS)TP, FPIA, CPP, MRTPI

Evidence requested by Whitehorse City Council

Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C143 | Expert evidence for Panel

© planisphere 2012 2

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

NAME & ADDRESS

1. My name is Michael John Crosby Scott and I am a managing director of Planisphere Pty Ltd, a planning and urban design consultancy located at Level 1/160 Johnston Street, Fitzroy.

QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE

2. I gained a Bachelor of Arts in Town Planning with Upper Second Class Honours from Polytechnic of the South Bank (now South Bank University) in London in 1974. I have practised in town planning and urban design since then, in major urban centres in the UK, and state, regional and local government in Victoria. Prior to consulting I was manager city strategic planning at the City of Melbourne (1986‐90) and corporate manager planning and environment at the City of Hawthorn (1990‐95). I established Mike Scott & Associates in 1995, and began Planisphere as a partnership with Lisa Riddle in 2001. A full CV is available on request.

3. I have been a Corporate member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (UK) since 1976, and of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA, previously RAPI) since 1995. I was elected a Fellow of PIA in 2006, and am a Certified Practising Planner (CPP). I am a current member of the Victorian Design Review Panel.

AREA OF EXPERTISE

4. My areas of expertise include strategic planning, urban design, community consultation and facilitation. Projects that I have contributed to, in the fields of strategic planning, community planning and urban design, have received numerous professional awards, including three national PIA awards. I have led or been involved in the preparation of more than a score of structure plans and urban design frameworks for activity centres, including Bay Street (Brighton), Church Street (Brighton), Hampton, Sandringham, High Street Darebin, Preston Central, Croydon, Ballarat CBD, Bendigo CBD (award winner), Mildura (award winner), Shepparton, Hastings, Elsternwick, Bentleigh and Carnegie centres, Central Coburg (award winner), and implementation of the Geelong Transit City / Western Wedge Development Framework (award winner).

INSTRUCTIONS & BACKGROUND

5. I have been instructed by the Planning Authority, Whitehorse City Council, to present the rationale behind the MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework and my opinion on the issues raised in submissions, namely to provide:

The rationale for the activity centre boundaries including discussion regarding the following key issues:

the absence of a gap between the MegaMile and Blackburn activity centres;

the suggestion to expand DDO to the north around the Sikh Temple site;

the suggestion to expand DDO to the west to include 77‐83 Whitehorse Road; and



the suggestion to expand DDO to include adjoining sites under single ownership.

The rationale for the built form guidelines in achieving the vision for the two activity centres including discussion regarding the following key issues:

the conditional 6 storeys allowed at 160 Whitehorse Road (gateway site) dependent on Surrey Road’s extension;

the building height allowed at 55‐65 Railway Road; and

the building height and setbacks at 245‐253 Whitehorse Road (as well as 231‐237 Whitehorse Road).

My opinion regarding the effect of the new zoning regulations being introduced and the following requests for rezoning:

2‐8 Ashburn Place;

10, 12, 18, 20 & 22 Metropolitan Avenue; and

Brandsmart.

ROLE OF EXPERT IN PREPARING EXHIBITED REPORT

6. My role on the MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework project was as Project Director for the lead consultant, Planisphere. I oversaw the delivery of all the project’s outputs, including the final Urban Design Framework report, which provides the basis for this Amendment C143. I also facilitated the consultation. Questions falling outside my expertise on this report include traffic and transport advice, economic analysis and landscape architecture.

OTHER PERSONS RELIED UPON

Chantal Lenthall, BUPD MPIA, Planisphere town planner, assisted with the analysis and preparation of this evidence.

FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS

7. Planisphere prepared the MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework for Whitehorse City Council that forms part of the underpinning for Amendment C143. I understand that the Council will have briefed the Panel in detail on the amendment and its background, including policy context and the UDF study process.

8. My evidence is based on:

MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework (July 2010) & Background Report (November 2009)

Documentation for Amendment C143 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, and relevant current provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme

Attachment 3 (summary of Amendment C143 submissions) to the Minutes for Whitehorse’s Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 September 2012

Two briefings from Councils officers (15 October & 7 November 2012)

A site inspection on 9 November 2012, and Chantal Lenthall’s site inspection on 2 November 2012



9. I have also examined:

Clauses 22.06, 22.11 and 22.12 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme

Reformed Zones (DPCD, 2012)

Draft Industrial Strategy (The Planning Group, February 2011) for Amendment C135 exhibition

Nunawading MegaMile Major Activity Centre and Mitcham Neighbourhood Activity Centre Structure Plan (MGS Architects, April 2008)

Information about permit applications for land in and near Queen Street, Blackburn received 2 November 2011

VCAT decision for Ref. No. P3703/2011 concerning 55‐65 Railway Road, Blackburn & amended plans prepared for the VCAT hearing

Amended plans for 77‐83 Whitehorse Road, Blackburn prepared for the VCAT hearing, and note of oral decision supplied to Council by SongBowdenPlanning (Ref. No. P2217/2012)

Site plan for 160 Whitehorse Road dated 30/8/2012

SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS

10. In my opinion, the Council’s translation of the MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework into proposed Amendment C143 accurately reflects the intent of the UDF prepared by Planisphere.

11. I find that the provisions of Amendment C143 are sound and supportable, except that in my opinion the 3‐5 metre landscaped front setback specified in DDO8‐B should apply to any use, including residential, within the area delineated for 3‐5 metre front setback on the Buildings Map opposite page 12 of the UDF.

12. In relation to the former Leader (now Lexus) site at 160 Whitehorse Road, I see no in principle reason for ruling out a nexus between allowable height and provision of the land for the road link; however, purely from an urban design perspective, I regard six storeys as appropriate for the corner extremity of the site (east of the potential Surrey road extension), provided the building is of an architectural standard that justifies this prominence.



MEGAMILE [WEST] & BLACKBURN UDF, 2010

AMENDMENT C143

13. Amendment C143 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme seeks to implement the MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework (UDF). It proposes to:

Rezone some parcels of land in Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre from Business 1, Business 3 and Business 4 Zones to Business 2 Zone;

Introduce and apply a Design and Development Overlay to both activity centres with specific design objectives and controls by sub‐precinct including heights and setbacks;

Update Clause 22.11 (Queen and Albert Street Area) and Clause 22.12 (Blackburn Station Shopping Centre); and

Introduce the UDF as a permanent reference document in the Local Planning Policy Framework.

The amendment also updates the Blackburn Station Village Business Plan.

MEGAMILE [WEST] & BLACKBURN ACTIVITY CENTRES UDF, 2010

14. In early 2009, Planisphere was commissioned by the City of Whitehorse to prepare the Whitehorse MegaMile [West] and Blackburn Activity Centres Urban Design Framework. For brevity we refer to this hereafter as the Megamile West & Blackburn UDF, or simply ‘the UDF’. This encompasses two activity centres:

MegaMile [west of Springvale Road] Major Activity Centre Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre

The study was funded by the City of Whitehorse in conjunction with the Department of Planning and Community Development’s (DPCD) Expert Assistance Program.

MEGAMILE WEST & EAST

15. The MegaMile West & Blackburn UDF was preceded by a structure plan for MegaMile East: the Nunawading MegaMile Major Activity Centre [East] and Mitcham Neighbourhood Activity Centre Structure Plan, prepared by McGauran Giannini Soon (MGS Architects). The study areas for the two plans abut at Varman Court, Nunawading. The studies are intended to be complementary, and to be consistent in supporting and strengthening the bulky goods retail function of Whitehorse Road either side of Springvale Road.

16. The study area boundary for the UDF was identified in Council’s tender brief. It excludes industrial areas to the south of Whitehorse Road, which were subject to a separate Industrial Strategy. As the study progressed, this boundary was found to be appropriate as the activity centre boundary, taking into account the activity centre boundary criteria contained in Practice Note 58 Structure Planning for Activity Centres.

UDF BRIEF

17. The brief for the UDF was to:



Provide a comprehensive review of the existing conditions including (but not limited to) policy framework, infrastructure, future trends and challenges;

Identify future opportunities and their constraints to inform objectives and strategies; and

Develop a UDF (including an access and mobility study) for the MegaMile [West] and Blackburn Activity Centre.

18. Planisphere and its study team were awarded the project in February 2009. Planisphere’s team included AECOM (traffic and transport advice), Urban Enterprise (economic analysis and development feasibility) and Aspect Studios (landscape and urban design advice).

UDF STUDY PROCESS

19. The UDF was undertaken in the following five stages: Stage 1: Inception & Review Stage 2: Analysis & Objectives Stage 3: Options Development & Assessment Stage 4A: Draft Urban Design Framework Stage 4B: Consultation on the draft UDF Stage 5: Revision / finalisation of the UDF

I understand that the Council’s presentation will provide more detail on the study process.

UDF BACKGROUND REPORT

20. A Background Report prepared by the study team in November 2009 as part of the UDF process includes:

Introduction Policy Context (including an overview of the Planning Scheme and other relevant documents) Social & Community Profile Existing Conditions Analysis Appendix A: Consultation Report

21. In addition, I understand that the Council’s presentation will provide detail on the Planning Scheme policy context for the study, and on relevant contextual reports and studies. For brevity and to avoid repetition, I have not included a policy context analysis in this evidence.

CONTENT OF THE UDF

22. The UDF final report includes: Introduction Directions Study Area Wide Themes Precincts Implementation Plan Appendix A: Proposed Rezoning Map



THE UDF’S VISION

23. Separate visions were established for each of the activity centres. The visions drew upon existing policy, community aspirations and the separate roles and functions of each centre based on Urban Enterprise’s economic analysis.

24. The vision established for the MegaMile [West] Major Activity Centre is:

The MegaMile [West] Major Activity Centre (MAC) will strengthen its regional role as a bulky goods retailing destination with consolidation of bulky goods retailing along Whitehorse Road, linking with the MegaMile [East]. Small offices, generally at upper levels, will locate along Whitehorse Road as a secondary activity focus.

The consistent streetscape and design themes developed for MegaMile [East] will be extended and applied to MegaMile [West].

Access and movement within the centre will recognise the nature of bulky goods retailing with its reliance in part on private vehicle access. Improvements to the pedestrian environment and consolidation of car parking areas will increase pedestrian activity throughout the MegaMile and encourage more sustainable transport options.

25. The vision established for the Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre is:

The Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC) will strengthen its role as an urban village focused around the Blackburn Railway Station as a high quality transport hub.

The Blackburn Station Shopping Centre will remain as the heart of the area, with its strong sense of place and identity as a local shopping village and community meeting place.

This will be complemented by a mix of retail, office, community and higher density residential uses adding to its vibrancy and activity. Improvements to connections between the north and south sides of the railway line and northern parts of Whitehorse Road, and surrounding residential areas will promote walking and cycling to and within the Activity Centre.

THE UDF’S THEMES

26. The UDF report’s recommendations are structured by study‐wide Themes, and also by Precincts. The Themes dealt with are:

Activities (land use) Buildings (built form) Spaces (public realm) Access (transport)

27. The UDF’s objectives for Activities are to:

Consolidate and strengthen the role of the MegaMile as a key bulky goods retail destination serving a wide catchment.

Strengthen the local neighbourhood role and continue to support a mix of activities within the Blackburn Neighbourhood Activity Centre as an urban village.

Protect established residential and industrial areas from inappropriate commercial uses.

Provide for more housing choice and diversity within the MegaMile [West] and Blackburn Activity Centres.



28. The UDF’s objectives for Buildings are to:

Create a strong and distinct image for both the MegaMile [West] and Blackburn Activity Centres.

Facilitate the redevelopment of potential opportunity sites.

Ensure that new development is sensitively designed and complements or enhances the existing character of the area.

Reinforce sustainable design practices in the siting and design of new development, or retrofitting of existing buildings in line with Council’s draft Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy.

Facilitate the activation of buildings at the street level.

29. The UDF’s objectives for Access are to:

Provide equitable access for all.

Facilitate modal shift from private vehicles to sustainable modes of transport including cycling, walking and public transport.

Create a high quality pedestrian environment to encourage walking around the centres.

Manage the road network to optimise safety, amenity and efficiency for all road users including cars and bicycles.

Manage car parking demand and provision to support the activity, streetscape amenity and economic competitiveness of the MegaMile [West] and Blackburn Activity Centres.

30. The UDF’s objectives for Spaces are to:

Provide a variety of experiences and opportunities for people to meet, enjoy and relax in both the MegaMile [West] and Blackburn Activity Centres.

Create a vibrant, interesting and safe pedestrian environment.

Strengthen the local sense of place, character and identity of the Activity Centres.

Enhance the leafy landscape setting and sustainable image of the area.

THE UDF’S PRECINCTS

31. Seven precincts were identified within the study area, based on common land uses, built form character and potential strategic direction. The Precincts section of the report provides area‐specific recommendations in addition to those in the Themes section. A map of the precincts is provided at Appendix C.

32. The Precincts Map also delineates a boundary between the MegaMile [West] MAC and the Blackburn NAC.

33. The UDF’s objectives for Precinct A1: MegaMile Bulky Goods are to:

Consolidate and strengthen the role of the MegaMile as a key bulky goods retail destination serving a wide catchment.

Create a high quality design of the public and private realms to provide a strong and consistent image for the MegaMile.

Encourage people to move about the area by foot or bicycle.



Manage car parking demand and provision to support the activity, streetscape amenity and economic competitiveness of the MegaMile.

34. The UDF’s objectives for Precinct A2: Megamile Residential / Commercial are to:

Retain Precinct A2 as a mix of established residential and ancillary community uses.

Improve the design of the public and private realms that reinforces Precinct A2 as a predominantly residential area.

35. The UDF’s objectives for Precinct B1: Blackburn NAC Core Office / Mixed Use are to:

Strengthen the mix of office, commercial, secondary retail and upper level residential land uses within close proximity to the Blackburn Station and Shopping Centre.

Optimise the viability, safety and efficiency of the road network for all road users.

Encourage people to move about the area by foot or bicycle. Enhance the contemporary image and identity of the Core Office / Mixed Use Precinct.

36. The UDF’s objectives for Precinct B2: Blackburn Station Village are to:

Strengthen the role of the Blackburn Station Village as a neighbourhood centre servicing the local business and residential community.

Maintain the valued ‘village’ character and localised sense of place of the Blackburn Station Village.

Provide a variety of experiences and opportunities for people to meet, enjoy and relax in the Blackburn Station Village.

Improve pedestrian and cyclist navigability, amenity and safety throughout the Blackburn Station Village.

37. The UDF’s objectives for Precinct B3: Blackburn Higher Density Residential are to:

Encourage higher density residential development within close proximity to a range of services and facilities.

Enhance key pedestrian and cyclist connections to Blackburn Station, Blackburn Station Village and areas to the north of Whitehorse Road.

38. The UDF’s objectives for Precinct B4: Whitehorse Road Peripheral Retail / Commercial are to:

Support a mixture of high quality peripheral retail and commercial land uses that complement the nearby Blackburn Station Village and MegaMile [West] Major Activity Centre.

Encourage people to move about the area by foot or bicycle.

STATUTORY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UDF

39. The study recommends the following changes to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to implement the UDF:

Include the UDF’s objectives and strategies in the Local Planning Policy Framework;

Include the UDF as a reference document;



Introduce a Design and Development Overlay to implement the heights and setbacks recommended in the UDF;

Rezone identified Business 1, Business 3 and Business 4 Zoned land in Precincts B1 and B2 to Business 2 Zone to support a mix of office, commercial, secondary retail and upper level residential land use;

Rezone identified Business 4 Zoned land in Precinct B4 to Business 2 Zone to support peripheral retail and commercial land uses; and

Review and amend Clause 22.11 (Albert Street Area) 22.12 (Blackburn Station Shopping Centre) to ensure it reflects the recommended building heights and desired built form outcomes identified in the UDF.

THE UDF’S APPROACH TO BOUNDARY DELINEATION

40. Several submissions seek an extension either to the study area boundary, the activity centre boundary, or the DDO boundary. All three boundaries follow the same alignment, and this was a result of deliberate intent. Some submissions propose a change to a boundary to allow more intense development; others wish to bring sites under the protective umbrella of the DDO, because it is perceived to provide greater control than ResCode. These issues are responded to case‐by‐case in the Commentary on Key Issues section of my evidence (below).

41. The study area was delineated by the Council in its brief. It generally extends to include residential streets or properties in the immediate vicinity of the commercial core of each centre. It also includes the residential area fronting the north side of Whitehorse Road between Peacedale Road and Maple Street. It excludes industrial areas to the south of Whitehorse Road, which were subject to a separate Industrial Strategy.

42. Early in the study, community members expressed concern about the intent of the Blackburn NAC’s inclusion in the MegaMile MAC study area. The controversy was driven by a misapprehension that the intent was to extend MegaMile retail characteristics into Blackburn Village. The boundary subsequently delineated by the study between the MegaMile MAC and the Blackburn NAC achieved broad acceptance during the study process, though two submitters disagree.

THE UDF’S APPROACH TO ZONING

43. A number of submissions request extending B4Z to cover specified properties currently zoned IN1Z. Brandsmart / 288 Whitehorse Road has requested that its land be rezoned from B4Z to B1Z. These submissions are responded to in the Commentary on Key Issues section of my evidence (below).

44. The Business 4 Zone (B4Z) is well suited to bulky goods retailing of the kind that has established along Whitehorse Road, and is retained by the UDF. The recommended zoning changes concern the area of the Blackburn NAC. Apart from a short parade of shops on the north side of Whitehorse Road in Blackburn, the only part of the study area zoned B1Z is the centre of the Blackburn NAC.

45. The UDF recommends that all B3Z and B4Z in Blackburn NAC be rezoned to B2Z to discourage bulky goods retailing in the area and support a mix of office, commercial,



secondary retail and upper level residential land use. The Council has included each of these in proposed Amendment C143, and I support this.

PROPOSAL TO REFORM ZONES

46. The intent of Amendment C143 would be undermined if some of the zoning reforms recently released by DPCD for public comment were to be implemented. These changes include replacing the Business Zones with two Commercial Zones, with B4Z proposed to be subsumed into C2Z, and B1Z+B2Z combined into C1Z. Three new residential zones are proposed: Neighbourhood (NRZ), General (GRZ) and Growth (RGZ), and changes are proposed to IN1Z. Translation arrangements have not yet been canvassed.

47. Among the concerns about the new zones relevant to the statutory implementation of the UDF are the following:

Supermarket (up to 2,000 sq m) and Shops, in conjunction with a supermarket and only up to 500 sq m, would be allowed without a permit in the Commercial 2 Zone, whereas Shop (other than restricted retail, adult sex book shop and convenience shop) is currently prohibited in B4Z.

Restricted Retail Premises would be allowed without a permit and without condition in both Commercial Zones – this might undermine the objective of consolidating MegaMile as a regional bulky goods retail centre and discouraging bulky goods from locating within the Blackburn NAC.

The combining of B1Z and B2Z into C1Z would result in less control over any dispersal or proliferation of Shop uses into the current B2Z area, because Shop would be as‐of‐right throughout the new zone. This could have an adverse effect on long standing policies to consolidate retail uses into the Blackburn Station Shopping Centre area.

In two of the three proposed Residential zones (RGZ, GRZ), Shop, with some exceptions, would be allowed with a permit (and, in certain situations, without one) within 100 metres of a Commercial or Mixed Use zone.

Collectively, these changes would make it difficult or impossible for the Responsible Authority to enforce the differentiation in retail role between Blackburn NAC and MegaMile MAC that is central to the recommendations of the UDF.

THE UDF’S APPROACH TO BUILT FORM CONTROLS

48. Building height has proved to be of concern in a number of submissions – some from the standpoint that the limits are too high, others that they are too restrictive.

49. Bulky goods areas often display poor urban design, and introducing a greater consistency in building heights and setbacks is a way to ameliorate this. The study area includes a variety of urban characters, and the built form controls proposed in the UDF respond to a number of considerations, including:

50. Low scale (8m/1‐2storeys) for the intimate, fine grain urban character of Blackburn Village, which has been recognised for some years in Clause 22.12‐3 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The village also adjoins a Significant Landscape Overlay and Neighbourhood Character Overlay.



51. Extension of this control to the existing fine‐grain, low scale area immediately north of the rail crossing, around the intersection of Railway Road and Blackburn Road. [This area includes 55‐65 Railway Road – see Commentary of Key Issues.] This area was judged to be integral to the character of the heart of the Blackburn Station Shopping Centre. Maintaining a consistent scale was seen as one way to assist with visually integrating the two halves of the central shopping area.

52. A similar scale for the majority of the residential areas immediately abutting the main commercial areas or on the edge of the study area. These locations are intended to transition to the scale of housing typically found in the residential areas of Blackburn and Nunawading.

53. Two to three storeys (8‐11m) for the much of the frontage to the north side of Whitehorse Road. These sites abut residential areas anticipated to stay low scale into the foreseeable future. Much of Whitehorse Road within the study area runs along a low ridge, which gradually falls away into the surrounding residential areas. Therefore higher built form on sites fronting Whitehorse Road will have a greater impact in terms of perceived bulk than would otherwise be the case. VicRoads has advised that additional crossovers for access to Whitehorse Road would not be allowed, thus limiting the capacity for sites, apart from corner sites that are able to gain access from side streets, to accommodate many more dwellings per site.

54. Two to three storeys (8‐11m) for part of the west side of Railway Road, the frontage to Blackburn Station on Railway Road South, and the east side of Vine Street. Each of these locations is intended to transition between areas of lower and higher built form.

55. Three to four storeys (11‐15m) for commercial properties along the south side of Whitehorse Road and Railway Road, and for most of the commercial and residential area within the Whitehorse Road / Railway Road ‘wedge’. None of these areas is adjacent to a residential area anticipated to stay low scale into the foreseeable future. For the larger bulky goods sites along Whitehorse Road, this height represents a reasonable expectation of the maximum to the market is likely to want to build – for example, by adding offices above a retail outlet, or building a two‐level bulky goods store. Within the Blackburn NAC, the proposed height is congruent with that of recent developments (the Leader and Salvation Army developments), and represents an increase in scale that will not overwhelm the valued village character of much of the Blackburn NAC.

56. Potential to go higher is indicated in the UDF report for several larger sites, on the basis that a greater site area allows for more efficient site planning, and for the visual impact of higher levels to be hidden or placed well away from any sensitive interfaces.

57. Transitional heights/upper level setbacks along residential interfaces. Concerns about overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk occur in residential areas adjoining commercial zones, when plans encourage greater intensity and height of development. The well established policy response is to set back the footprint of commercial development from sensitive residential interfaces, and to step back the upper levels.

58. Consistent front setbacks are particularly important in creating a coherent and attractive street environment. The principles embedded in the UDF include:

Maintaining zero setback with active frontages for traditional street‐based retail and commercial areas.



A consistent 3‐5m landscaped setback for the bulky goods retail area; also for the former Leader corner site, the Blackburn Primary School and the former Motor Inn and associated land on the north side of Whitehorse Road.

A consistent 3m landscaped setback for the south side of Railway Road, where most buildings are already setback.

Active edges to the Blackburn Village laneways and car parks.

59. Amendment C143 has made the following changes to the UDF’s built form recommendations:

In DDO8, increasing the 8m height to 9m, in light of DPCD comments regarding consistency with ResCode. I accept and agree with this.

In DDO8‐B, limiting the street setback of 3‐5 metres to non‐residential uses, and applying ResCode setback requirements for residential uses. This is Council’s interpretation of the UDF’s Buildings Map, which makes the general rule that ResCode setbacks should apply in all residential areas, but proposes 3‐5 metres for the area around the Motor Inn site of the north side of Whitehorse Road. My opinion is that the Whitehorse Road frontage of these parcels of land is so extensive that it virtually forms a sub‐precinct in which strict application of the ResCode front setback is not vital, even if the development is for residential use.

In DDO8‐D, making the allowance for development up to six storeys on the site at 160 Whitehorse Road conditional on the extension of Surrey Road through the site. Commentary on the 160 Whitehorse Road provision is made in the Commentary on Key Issues section of my evidence (below).

QUEEN STREET

60. Clause 22.03 Residential Development provides policy for land in Residential 1, Mixed Use and Priority Development Zones. Development of land is intended to occur in accordance with the level of change desired for the area and the area’s character. Three levels of change areas are identified: Substantial Change, Natural Change and Minimal Change. The only area of Substantial Change within the boundary of this study covers Queen, Station and Vine Streets, Blackburn.

61. Queen Street is denoted for higher built form and more intense development, but within the 3‐4 storey/11‐15m height area described above. Proposed DDO8‐C in this location has a maximum height of 11‐15 metres, or 3‐4 storeys with recessed upper (fourth) level, and street setback requirements in accordance with ResCode (all DDO provisions are expressed as ‘preferred’).

62. Recent VCAT decisions are apparently creating an expectation that apartment blocks up to five storeys will be approved in Queen Street. Does this mean that the preferred heights recommended in the UDF for Queen Street, and included in C143, are no longer relevant and tenable?

63. The answer to this question rests in part on the extent of discretion that would be reasonable, in administering the preferred height limit. Proposed Clause 2.0 of DDO8 states that an application to exceed the preferred maximum height must demonstrate how the development will continue to achieve the Design Objectives and Built Form Outcomes of the Schedule, and any local planning policy requirements. Debate about whether to approve five storeys or more is likely to occur in VCAT, and to centre on arguments about character, design sensitivity, height transitions and so on. Such



debates are likely to involve conflicting expert opinions, with little certainty about the outcome, other than that:

If approvals continue to be granted for developments of five storeys (or more), it will become increasingly difficult to argue successfully for a four storey maximum for an individual development proposal.

If the preferred height were to be changed now to five storeys, this would be likely to accelerate this trend, or even to raise the bar to allow developments higher than 5 storeys.

If, on the other hand, the preferred height is retained at 3‐4 storeys, the Council has a stronger prospect of having a refusal of a taller building upheld, where this is judged to be justified by particular circumstances. Pre‐application negotiations would also be assisted.

64. These points may be criticised for reducing the argument about an appropriate height in Queen Street to a question of negotiating tactics, rather than a professional planning and design assessment of an appropriate height. Nevertheless, they are a reality in a planning system that is performance based, with heights that can only be expressed as mandatory in exceptional situations.

65. On balance, I stand by the preferred heights established by the UDF and incorporated into Am C143, despite the tendency for development proposals to breach the preferred limit.



COMMENTARY ON KEY ISSUES

SIKH TEMPLE / 12, 14, 16 & 18 JOHN STREET, BLACKBURN

66. Issue Raised in Submissions: Extend DDO8‐E to include existing residential properties at 12, 14, 16 and 18 John Street behind the Sikh Temple and the Blackburn Hotel.

RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS

4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 19, 30 & 32

ZONE John Street properties ‐ Residential 1 Zone Sikh Temple & Blackburn Hotel ‐ Mixed Use Zone

OVERLAY 16 John Street ‐ Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) 12 John Street ‐ Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO3) Other John Street properties ‐ None Sikh Temple ‐ Environmental Audit Overlay Blackburn Hotel ‐ None

SIZE 12,807 sq m

EXISTING USE John Street properties ‐ Dwellings Sikh Temple ‐ Place of assembly Blackburn Hotel ‐ Restaurant, gaming & live music venue with drive‐through bottle shop at front

UDF DIRECTION John Street properties are not included with project study area.Sikh Temple & Blackburn Hotel are located within Precinct B4 ‐ Whitehorse Road Peripheral Retail / Commercial:

Support a mixture of high quality peripheral retail and commercial land uses that complement the nearby Blackburn Station Village and MegaMile [West] Major Activity Centre.

Preferred building height of 8‐11m (2‐3 storeys with recessed upper (third) level)

Residential interface ‐ restrict building heights and provide transitional setbacks to retain amenity of adjoining residential properties.

C143 DIRECTION Amendment C143 does not relate to John Street properties.

The amendment applies DDO8‐E to adjoining properties along Pope Road to the east of the Sikh Temple site.

Preferred max height 9 metres

Preferred number of storeys 1‐2 storeys

Preferred street setbacks Apply setback requirements in accordance with ResCode

The amendment applies DDO8 to the Sikh Temple and Blackburn Hotel sites which are located within DDO8‐A (Railway and Whitehorse Roads):

Preferred max height 9‐11 metres

Preferred number of storeys 2‐3 storeys with recessed upper levels

Preferred street setbacks No front setbacks

DISCUSSION

67. John Street is an established residential street, comprising predominantly single storey dwellings, and 12, 14, 16 and 18 John Street together cover a large area. No. 12



John Street is a substantial property, consisting of 26 subdivided units in separate ownership. It extends behind other properties in John Street and backs onto the Blackburn Hotel site.

68. The Sikh Temple and Blackburn Hotel are included in an area envisaged for peripheral retail and commercial land uses. The Sikh Temple site is very long and extends to the rear of the properties along John Street.

69. The submitters appear to be concerned about the built form interface implications arising from any future expansion of the Sikh Temple. They point out that some residential properties adjoining the temple and hotel are included in proposed DDO8, whereas the John Street properties are not.

70. Proposed DDO8‐E (the part of the DDO that covers residential properties in this vicinity) in this location has a maximum height of 9 metres, or 1‐2 storeys, and street setback requirements in accordance with ResCode (all DDO provisions are expressed as ‘preferred’). The built form controls in DDO8‐E are virtually the same as the equivalent built form controls under Clauses 54 and 55.

71. The boundary of the proposed DDO follows the activity centre boundary. There is always debate about ‘where to draw the line’ in residential areas abutting activity centres.

CONCLUSION

72. One view is that the DDO might offer an additional layer of protection to the John Street properties. Another is that the John Street properties would be less susceptible to redevelopment or change of use if they are kept outside the activity centre boundary, as proposed. On balance my view is that it is better to leave these properties outside the boundary of the activity centre, and outside the boundary of proposed DDO8.

REDEVELOPMENT OF 77‐83 WHITEHORSE ROAD, BLACKBURN

73. Issue Raised in Submissions: Apply DDO8‐A to 77‐83 Whitehorse Road, and apply DDO8‐E to 83 Whitehorse Road, which is currently located adjacent to and outside the activity centres.

RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS

13, 29

ZONE Residential 1 Zone

OVERLAY No overlays apply

SIZE 2,757 sq m

EXISTING USE Dwellings, Massage & relaxation services

UDF DIRECTION The properties are not included within the study area. The Blackburn NAC boundary commences at 85 Whitehorse Road (zoned Business 1) which is located within Precinct B4 which supports a mixture of peripheral retail and commercial land uses.

C143 DIRECTION Amendment C143 does not relate to 77‐83 Whitehorse Road.



DISCUSSION

74. The submission by Ratio Consultants for the proponents of the redevelopment of 77‐83 Whitehorse Road requests that DDO8‐A be extended to cover these properties, but with the preferred height increased from 2‐3 storeys to 4‐5 storeys. Submission 13, on the other hand, requests that DDO8‐E be extended to cover 83 Whitehorse Road, presumably as a means of increasing the level of control.

75. Proposed DDO8‐A has a maximum height of 9‐11 metres, or 2‐3 storeys with recessed upper (third) storey (all DDO provisions are expressed as ‘preferred’). Proposed DDO8‐E has a maximum height of 9 metres, or 1‐2 storeys, and street setback requirements in accordance with ResCode (all DDO provisions are expressed as ‘preferred’). The built form controls in DDO8‐E are virtually the same as the equivalent built form controls under Clauses 54 and 55.

76. The proposed preferred height in DDO8‐A responds to the following:

Most sites covered by this Schedule abut residential areas anticipated to stay low scale into the foreseeable future.

Many sites covered by this Schedule are topographically higher than the residential areas they abut.

The VicRoads limitation on additional crossovers for access to Whitehorse Road limits the capacity for intensification of sites, apart from corner sites.

77. The arguments for applying the provisions of DDO8‐A to 77‐83 Whitehorse Road rely on its proximity to a Neighbourhood Activity Centre. There is not a great deal to choose between the provisions of proposed DDO8‐A as they stand, and those of the planning scheme that would apply to a residential development in a R1Z without an overlay, in this location. The activity centre boundary in this vicinity is essentially an extension of the boundary along the Vine Street alignment, an alignment I do not recall being questioned during the study process.

78. The arguments for and against applying the provisions of DDO8‐E to 83 Whitehorse Road are similar to those discussed in relation to 12, 14, 16 and 18 John Street (above).

CONCLUSION

79. My opinion is that DDO8 should not be extended to cover 77‐83 Whitehorse Road.

BUNNING’S: REZONING OF 10, 12, 18, 20 & 22 METROPOLITAN AVE

80. Issue Raised in Submission: Rezone from IN1Z to B4Z and apply DDO8 to 10, 12, 18, 20 and 22 Metropolitan Avenue, which Bunnings own, so that controls over their land are consistent and they can expand (refers to current planning application).

RELEVANT SUBMISSION

24

ZONE Metropolitan Avenue properties ‐ Industrial 1 Zone 250 Whitehorse Road ‐ Business 4 Zone

OVERLAY No overlays apply to 250 Whitehorse Road & Metropolitan Avenue properties

SIZE Metropolitan Avenue properties ‐ 3,841 sq m

EXISTING USE Metropolitan Avenue properties ‐ Commercial / industrial activities 248‐254 Whitehorse Road ‐ Bunnings store



UDF DIRECTION Metropolitan Avenue properties are not included within the study area. Bunnings store is located within Precinct A1 ‐ MegaMile [West] Bulky Goods:

Consolidate and strengthen the role of the MegaMile as a key bulky goods retail destination servicing a wide catchment

Preferred building height of 11‐15m (3‐4 storeys with recessed upper (fourth) level)

Identified as a site with the potential to go higher (up to 6 storeys (21 metres) with recessed upper levels)

Preferred 3‐5m landscaped building setback, with active frontages

C143 DIRECTION Amendment C143 does not relate to Metropolitan Avenue properties.

The amendment applies DDO8 to the Bunnings store site which is located within DDO8‐D (160 Whitehorse Rd & sites over 10,000m

2):


Preferred number of storeys 6 storeys with recessed upper levels

Preferred street setbacks 3‐5 metre landscaped front and side setback streets

81. I understand that a planning permit for stage 1 of Bunning’s expansion onto these properties has been granted – the rezoning was not needed for this. The Council has indicated that the sites should be consolidated into a single title before rezoning is pursued. I note that the future zoning of number 14 Metropolitan Avenue would need to be considered at the same time.

82. The arguments for and against replacing industrial uses with expanded bulky goods retailing would no doubt have been considered in the permit approval process. An expansion of the bulky goods retail role of the centre supports the UDF’s objectives.

CONCLUSION

83. I agree with the Council’s position, that rezoning of these properties (and number 14) from IN1Z to B4Z be pursued once the properties have been consolidated into a single title.

EARLY SETTLER / 2‐8 ASHBURN PLACE: REZONE/EXTEND DDO

84. Issue Raised in Submission: Rezone IN1Z to B4Z and apply DDO8 to 2‐8 Ashburn Place which is owned by the same owners as 200‐206 Whitehorse Road, so that controls over their land are consistent to provide opportunities for future consolidation of sites.

RELEVANT SUBMISSION

23

ZONE 2‐8 Ashburn Place ‐ Industrial 1 Zone 200‐206 Whitehorse Road ‐ Business 4 Zone


SIZE 2‐8 Ashburn Place ‐ 5,058 sq m

EXISTING USE 2‐8 Ashburn Place ‐ Warehouse / office 200‐206 Whitehorse Road ‐ Retail premises (Early Settler)



UDF DIRECTION 2‐8 Ashburn Place is not included in the study area. 200‐206 Whitehorse Road is located within Precinct A1 ‐ MegaMile [West] Bulky Goods:

Consolidate and strengthen the role of the MegaMile as a key bulky goods retail destination servicing a wide catchment.

Preferred building height of 11‐15m (3‐4 storeys with recessed upper (fourth) level)

Preferred 3‐5m landscaped building setback, with active frontages

C143 DIRECTION Amendment C143 does not relate to 2‐8 Ashburn Place.

Applies DDO8 to 200‐206 Whitehorse Road. The site located within DDO8‐D (Remaining areas):


Preferred number of storeys 3‐4 storeys with recessed upper (fourth) level


DISCUSSION

85. Rezoning of this land from IN1Z to B4Z would support the expansion of the bulky goods retail role of the MegaMile centre, but reduce the amount of industrially zoned land, which is seen as a pressure to be resisted in the Council’s Industrial Strategy. Restricted retail is allowable in IN1Z with a permit, and the Council has indicated its willingness to consider a rezoning if and when the titles to the combined site are consolidated. Extension of DDO8 could be considered at the same time.

CONCLUSION

86. The arguments for and against replacing industrial uses with expanded bulky goods retailing would need to be been considered in any permit approval process. A rezoning in advance of a firm development proposal and consolidation of titles would appear to be premature. An expansion of DDO8 would appear to be premature for the same reasons.

BRANDSMART: REZONE 288 WHITEHORSE ROAD

87. Issue Raised in Submission: Rezone 288 Whitehorse Road from B4Z to B1Z to encourage a broader mix of uses beyond bulky goods. Do not introduce DDO on site. If DDO is retained, entire site should be included in DDO8‐D. Object to front and side setbacks contained in DDO8‐D and the ResCode setback requirements in DDO8‐E (rear of the site).

RELEVANT SUBMISSION

26

ZONE Business 4 Zone

OVERLAY No overlays currently apply to the site

SIZE 25,680 sq m

EXISTING USE Retail premises (Brandsmart ‐ Premium outlet centre)

UDF DIRECTION The site is located within Precinct A1 ‐ MegaMile [West] Bulky Goods:

Consolidate and strengthen the role of the MegaMile as a key bulky



goods retail destination servicing a wide catchment. Direction for the majority of site is:

Maximum building height of 11‐15m (3‐4 storeys with recessed upper (fourth) level).

Identified as a site with the potential to go higher (up to 6 storeys (21 metres) with recessed upper levels)

3‐5m landscaped building setback, with active frontages Southern extent of subject site has:

Maximum building height of 8m

Residential interface ‐ restrict buildings heights and provide transitional upper level setbacks to maintain amenity of adjoining residential properties

C143 DIRECTION The amendment applies DDO8 to the subject site. The majority of site located within DDO8‐D (160 Whitehorse Rd & sites over 10,000m

2):




The southern extent of site is located within DDO8‐E:




DISCUSSION

88. The UDF supports B1Z for the centre of the Blackburn NAC, but sets a vision and objectives for the MegaMile MAC that clearly point to a bulky goods retailing future. Introducing a B1Z onto a single site in the MegaMile strip would be contrary to the intent of the UDF. It would create a precedent that could lead to further requests to rezone to B1Z which, if approved, would dilute the mainstream retail offer of the Neighbourhood Activity Centres in and around MegaMile East and West and threaten the viability and vibrancy of these, and perhaps other centres.

89. The submitter’s comment about six storeys providing a ‘base case’ height for the site is hard to understand and respond to, given that DDO8 refers to this as the preferred height for most of the site.

90. The intent behind applying DDO8‐E to the southern extremity of the site is to provide a sensitive interface with residential areas to the south. A glance at the map shows that the Belgrave/Lilydale rail line intervenes between the subject site and the residential area. However inspection on site of the levels reveals a potential for visual bulk that needs to be anticipated in the DDO. The Brandsmart land slopes marginally towards the rail line, but is elevated considerably above adjoining properties – the land seems to have been raised with fill and battered. The land drops abruptly to the rail line, and the residential area lies below the level of the railway. A large and bulky building – up to six storeys or more – extending to the southern boundary of the Brandsmart land, would tower over the dwellings on the north side of Laughlin Avenue.



91. The landscaped front setback is a characteristic of a majority of the MegaMile which the UDF supports. A primary aim of the UDF is to raise the standard of the visual amenity of the MegaMile, partly through landscaping (which the Council has been implementing gradually), and partly by setting ground rules for a more consistent relationship between built form and public realm.

CONCLUSION

92. In my opinion the provisions of Amendment C143 for 288 Whitehorse Road should remain unchanged.

55‐65 RAILWAY ROAD, BLACKBURN: BUILDING HEIGHT

93. Issue Raised in Submissions: The maximum building height specified in the UDF and DDO8 does not maximise the growth potential of the Blackburn Activity Centre or development potential of the subject site.

RELEVANT SUBMISSION

9


OVERLAY No overlays currently apply to the site(s)

SIZE 1,502 sq m

EXISTING USE Retail premises (NAB, vacant shop, Barracuda security shop, Mexican restaurant, vacant shop)

UDF DIRECTION Site is located within Precinct B2 ‐ Blackburn Station Village:

Strengthen role as a neighbourhood centre, maintain village character and local sense of place, improve pedestrian amenity.

Maximum building height of 8m.

Residential interface ‐ restrict buildings heights and provide transitional upper level setbacks to maintain amenity of adjoining residential properties along rear boundary.

No setbacks, active frontages and weather protection where possible along Railway Place and Albert Street

Area adjoining subject site existing residential development

C143 DIRECTION Amendment C143 applies DDO8 to the subject site. It is located within DDO8‐F (Remaining Areas):

Preferred max height 10m or 9m if adjoining residential land use


Preferred street setbacks No setback

DISCUSSION

94. The UDF defines an area referred to as Blackburn Station Village (precinct B2) within which recommended building heights are restrained to three storeys or less. This area is seen as very much the heart of the Blackburn NAC, in terms of land use and built form. Opportunities for higher, more intensive development are provided in extensive areas to the north and east of the Blackburn Station Village.

95. The block of small commercial premises between Albert Street and Chapel Street is currently single storey with some two storey. Numbers 55‐65 Railway Road form part



of this block, and are all single storey. All the shops and commercial properties along South Parade, and between South Parade and Chapel Street, are of the same ‘single storey with some two storey scale.

96. Immediately to the north of 55‐65 Railway Road is a residential area slated for development up to 3‐4 storeys in the UDF, and separated from nos. 55‐65 by a laneway. In other circumstances it would have made sense for the Albert Street to Chapel Street block of Railway Road to be a similar height. In this instance, this consideration is overridden in the UDF by the rationale of creating a consistent 1‐2 storey character for the central part of the Blackburn Station Village. Until it was amended to remove reference to heights, Clause 22.12 applied a 10 metre height limit (8m on a boundary with residential) to properties south of the railway line, and the subject land remains well inside the current Blackburn Station Shopping Centre boundary to which current Clause 22.12 applies. This concern to maintain a village character and scale for the central part of the Blackburn Station Village has been long standing concern of the Council and community.

97. Proposed DDO8‐F in this location has a maximum height of 10 metres or 9 metres if adjoining residential land use with no front setback (all DDO provisions are expressed as ‘preferred’). While the proposed Schedule refers to a preferred 1‐2 storeys, the actual metres vary only marginally from the 3 storey development approved on 4 October this year by VCAT (ref no. P3703/2011). The Tribunal’s determination states at para 20:

The neighbouring residential property is within Business 2 zone, and is earmarked in the UDF as supporting development of a four storey height. Within this context, I consider it reasonable in the circumstances to adopt 10 metres as the preferred maximum height for development on the review site. Accordingly, the proposed heights are ‘in the order’ of those envisaged in DDO8. The variation is 0.35 metres‐1.3 metres. This is equivalent to less than half a storey.

CONCLUSION

98. In my opinion the provisions of Amendment C143 for 55‐65 Railway Road should remain unchanged.

FORMER LEADER (NOW LEXUS) SITE, 160 WHITEHORSE ROAD

99. Issues Raised in Submissions: The preferred maximum height at 160 Whitehorse Road should not be tied to the potential Surrey Road extension. This should be dealt with using a Public Acquisition Overlay if desired. VicRoads does not intend to object to the proposed development for the site because it does not intend to extend Surrey Road. Reference to the extension should be removed from the UDF. The maximum height for the site should be increased to 6 storeys. The preferred maximum height for the site should be 11‐15 metres with recessed upper levels no more than 21 metres.



RELEVANT SUBMISSION

8 [also 2 (Resident), 7 (Blackburn Village Residents Group), 20 (VicRoads)]


OVERLAY No overlays currently apply to the site(s)

SIZE 8,749 sq m

EXISTING USE Car parking (advertising about future Lexus site) Current planning permit application for a car yard and ancillary uses

UDF DIRECTION The site is located within Precinct B1 ‐ Core Office / Mixed Use:

Strengthen the mix of office, commercial, secondary retail and upper level residential land uses.

Advocate to VicRoads to create a new road link between Surrey Road and Railway Road.

Identified as a key redevelopment site with potential for higher development, up to 6 storey (21 storeys) with recessed upper levels

Identifies the potential expansion of Surrey Road through to Railway Road.

Specifies 3m landscaped front setback, active frontages along Railway Road and Whitehorse Road.

C143 DIRECTION Amendment C143 rezones site to Business 2 Zone. It applies DDO8‐D to the subject site:




DISCUSSION

100. The UDF includes an action to advocate to VicRoads, landowners and private developers options to create a new roadway across this land to link Surrey Road to Railway Road (see actions on page 32 of the UDF).

101. The UDF denotes the eastern half of this land as a prominent gateway / corner site with potential for a building height up to 6 storeys (21m) with recessed upper levels. The whole site is identified as a key development site.. Proposed DDO8‐D in amendment C143 specifies that 6 storeys (in this case for the whole of 160 Whitehorse Road) is allowed for the whole site and is conditional on the extension of Surrey Road through the site.

102. I note that other submitters (2 & 7) have suggested that the preferred maximum height at 160 Whitehorse Road (former Leader site) should be 11‐15 metres with recessed upper levels to 21 metres.

CONCLUSION

103. The road link is referred to in the UDF and the Amendment as an aspiration, not a proposal, therefore I see no reason why reference to it should be removed from either or both.

104. Offering a development bonus in return for planning gains is a concept that has been used in the Victorian planning system (for example, plot ratio bonuses in the central city). In this instance, the intent was to offer an increase in allowable height (and



therefore floorspace) in exchange for part of the site being used for a new link road. I see no in principle reason for ruling out a nexus between allowable height and provision of the land for the road link.

105. Setting aside the question of the link road, the UDF states that a height of six storeys is appropriate for the eastern part of 160 Whitehorse Road. Looking purely at the urban design merits, I regard six storeys as appropriate for the corner site, provided the building is of an architectural standard that justifies this prominence.

MOTOR INN SITE, 245‐253 WHITEHORSE RD / 59 GOODWIN ST

106. Issue Raised in Submission: Increase the allowable intensity of use and height of development throughout study area, particularly in Precinct A2.

RELEVANT SUBMISSION

33

ZONE Residential 1 Zone


SIZE 3,825 sq m

EXISTING USE Accommodation (residential hotel) & dwelling

UDF DIRECTION The site is located within Precinct A2 MegaMile [West] Residential / Community:

Retain area as a mix of established residential and ancillary community uses

Maximum buiding height 8‐11 metres (2‐3 storeys with recessed upper (third) level) for 245‐253 Whitehorse Road and maximum 8 metres (1‐2 storeys) for 59 Goodwin Street

3‐5 metres landscaped front setback, active frontages along Whitehorse Road and Goodwin Street for 245‐253 Whitehorse Road and apply setback requirements in accordance with ResCode and subject to heritage and character considerations for 59 Goodwin Street

Residential interface ‐ restrict buildings heights and provide transitional upper level setbacks to maintain amenity of adjoining residential buildings.

C143 DIRECTION The amendment applies DDO8‐B (Whitehorse Road residential uses) to 245‐253 Whitehorse Road:


Preferred number of storeys 2‐3 storeys with recessed upper (third) level


The amendment applies DDO8‐E (Remaining areas) to 59 Goodwin Street:






DISCUSSION

107. Proposed DDO8‐B has a maximum height of 9‐11 metres, or 2‐3 storeys with recessed upper (third) storey (all DDO provisions are expressed as ‘preferred’). For residential uses, the amendment applies street setback requirements in accordance with ResCode. For non‐residential uses the requirement is 3‐5 metre landscaped front setback.

108. The proposed preferred height in DDO8‐B responds to the following:

Most sites covered by this Schedule abut residential areas anticipated to stay low scale into the foreseeable future.

Many sites covered by this Schedule are topographically higher than the residential areas they abut.

The VicRoads limitation on additional crossovers for access to Whitehorse Road limits the capacity for intensification of sites, apart from corner sites.

109. The UDF and Amendment C143 provide ample opportunities for intensification of development across the two activity centres.

CONCLUSION

110. In my opinion the provisions of Amendment C143 for 245‐253 Whitehorse Rd / 59 Goodwin St should remain unchanged, except in relation to the front setback.

111. DDO8‐B requires setbacks in accordance with ResCode for residential uses, but a 3‐5 metre landscaped front setback for non‐residential uses. My opinion is that the 3‐5 metre landscaped front setback should apply to any use, including residential, within the area delineated on the Buildings Map opposite page 12 of the UDF.

CONCLUSION 112. In my opinion, the Council’s translation of the MegaMile [West] & Blackburn Activity

Centres Urban Design Framework into proposed Amendment C143 accurately reflects the intent of the UDF prepared by Planisphere.

113. I find that the provisions of Amendment C143 are sound and supportable, except that in my opinion the 3‐5 metre landscaped front setback specified in DDO8‐B should apply to any use, including residential, within the area delineated for 3‐5 metre front setback on the Buildings Map opposite page 12 of the UDF.

114. In relation to the former Leader (now Lexus) site at 160 Whitehorse Road, I see no in principle reason for ruling out a nexus between allowable height and provision of the land for the road link; however, purely from an urban design perspective, I regard six storeys as appropriate for the corner extremity of the site (east of the potential Surrey road extension), provided the building is of an architectural standard that justifies this prominence.



APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photos: Overview of Study Area

Appendix B: Photos illustrating Commentary on Key Issues

Appendix C: Precinct Map

Appendix D: Other Maps

expert witness evidence - city of · pdf fileexpert witness evidence ... my evidence is based...

Documents