re; plan melbourne refresh submission on behalf of mr rick … · 2017. 5. 22. · pps ss prs prs...
TRANSCRIPT
16 December 2015
Plan Melbourne Refresh Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning PO Box 2392 Melbourne 3000
Re; Plan Melbourne Refresh
Submission on behalf of Mr Rick Andreos and salim Dammous This submission is lodged by Tract Consultants on behalf of (Andsal Pty Ltd, ) and (Buxal Pty Ltd, ), in response to Plan Melbourne refresh. 1. Resolving a final perminant metropolitan boundary Plan Melbourne 2014 contained an action, 6.1.1, to establish a mechanism to create a perminant metropolitan boundary having regard to a number of considerations, including recommendations of the logical inclusions advisory committee, the position of Council and through an appropriate review process. This provision existed to allow a mechanism to resolve many inconsistancies and poor urban/rural interface issues that exist, to be remedied. There is a sound basis for it’s inclusion with many inconsistancies and problems emerging along the current UGB as more detailed planning occurs. The section 6.1.1 has been recommended as a continuing action by the Ministerial Advisory Committee informing Plan Melbourne Refresh and yet, the published discussion paper recommends it’s removal. No justification has been provided for this change and there appears no sound basis for the changed position. To ensure that a robust and long lasting metropolitan boundary is established and an interface created that does not unduly impact on land owners that must manage rural uses at the interface, a review is absolutely necessary and the mechanism must be retained Suggetsed response Retain the provisions of 6.1.1 of plan Melbourne 2014 as originally worded.
2. Recommendation 2.2.5-4 – 25 lots to the hectare While diversity of housing and seeking to “future proof’ new residential developments to be able to meet a diversity of housing needs is a laudable objective, the mechanism proposed has some severe implications. Housing product demand in the growth areas does not match demand reflected in inner or established Melbourne and it is the growth areas that provide, generally, a greater proportion of larger lots to overall lot production to meet that sector of the market. Currently at approximately 17 per hectare increasing density beyond what the market can sustain will only result in an oversupply of smaller lots or that part of a development providing higher density, simply remaining undeveloped. The development industry will provide any type of housing product to meet demand and while some high density development exist in growth areas demand is low,
Project: 0313-0433 Vineyard Road G:\_DPCD Permanent All Staff\Plan Melbourne 2016\Amelia's stuff\Submissions\All Submission US
which is why it is only provided to a limited extent. Mandating a higher level of provision will not increase demand. Given the high cost of development, retaining a portion of a site for higher density development, long term effectively makes the development unviable. The only way a developer can recoup the cost of the loss of a significant part of the development is to increase the price of the salable lot to cover the cost and deliver a profit. Over the past 15 years, great advances in increasing the density of the net developable area within growth areas has been achieved. lot density has increased from an average 12 lots to the hectare to currently 17 lots to the hectare, not through regulation but through the development of innovative solutions for higher density product that is attractive to the market. The mandatory 25 lots to the hectare is a too big a stick for the purchaser of a new house lot to accommodate through increased housing prices. Plan Melbourne, as an alternative should look to incentives to facilitate this higher density early, an outcome that can only be achieved through m,aking this type of housing more attractive to the market and increasing demand. Suggetsed response Delete the provision for a mandatory 25 lots to the hectare.
The submittors are available to further discuss this matter and would like to remain informed of the outcome of the consultation process.
Yours faithfully
Senior Principal Town Planner Tract Consultants Pty Ltd
Project: 0313-0433 Vineyard Road G:\_DPCD Permanent All Staff\Plan Melbourne 2016\Amelia's stuff\Submissions\All Submission US
Plan Melbourne Refresh
Submission on behalf of:
BRUCE MATHIESON GROUP
Mr James Webster
Plan Melbourne Refresh001 Content002
Contents
01 Introduction 4
1.1 Overview 4
1.2 Context 4
02 The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review 5
2.1 Anomalies with the current UGB 5
2.2 Examples of anomalies 6
03 Greenvale West A Case Study 11
3.1 Existing Conditions 11
3.2 Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee 15
04 Plan Melbourne 2014 and the Advisory Committee 16
4.1 Plan Melbourne 2014 16
4.2 Plan Melbourne Refresh - Advisory Committee Recommendation 16
05 Summary 17
06 Required Response from Plan Melbourne 18
07 Conclusion 19
Plan Melbourne Refresh Introduction003
1.1 OverviewThis submission made on behalf of 4 major land owners in the Greenvale West recommended logical inclusions and seeks to address the need to maintain some mechanism, within Plan Melbourne to review the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and resolve some existing and emerging anomalies associated with its current location.
A review mechanism for the UGB is recommended not as a mechanism for wholesale, large shifts to the UGB but rather a mechanism for remedying anomalies that are emerging as Precinct Structure Plans are prepared, land use change occurs and more detailed planning and investigations are occurring generally.
Importantly there are several recommended planning outcomes that have yet to be fully resolved, including investigations into extractive industry and conservation areas in the northern growth corridor, planning for Melbourne Airport and unresolved “Logical inclusions” recommendations.
A review of the UGB, having regard to more recent planning and investigation presents an opportunity to provide more viable and socially sustainable communities and better define a long term, robust metropolitan boundary.
1.2 ContextPlan Melbourne builds on several decades of regular revisions of a strategic plan for Melbourne. In the past 15 years there have been 4 major reviews of a strategic plan for Melbourne. These have occurred through:
■ Melbourne 2030 (2003)
■ Growth Corridor Plans (2005),
■ Melbourne at 5 Million (2008) and
■ Plan Melbourne 2014.
01 Introduction
Each iteration of a plan has been in response to changes and influences ranging from economic outcomes, environmental considerations, changing demographics, market responses and changing social needs. All drivers are areas that require constant monitoring and are very difficult to project long term, reflecting flexible approach required in planning for complex change
Rather than view the revisions negatively, the regular review should be seen as a positive. It demonstrates an understanding by respective governments of the changing influences on urban development and each is a response to greater knowledge on how planning for a major city should occur.
The reality is that as a society we can only plan based on what is known or what is projected to occur. The reality also is that projections are not always right.
It is important in any “master plan” for Melbourne that an opportunity for review is built in. An opportunity to review adjust or modify specific directions is essential to the longevity of a plan and will avoid the need for major revisions or new plans.
Plan Melbourne 2014 presented a high level broad direction for Melbourne focussing strongly on transport. It facilitated more detail in response to specific recommendations intended to be implanted at the local level or through more detailed planning projects at State level.
From major urban renewal to planning in Melbourne’s growth areas, a process for review and adjustment existed, this is important in such an all-encompassing document dealing with such a complex range of issues.
Melbourne’s growth areas and the UGB are no exception.
002 Introduction Plan Melbourne Refresh004
2.1 Anomalies with the current UGB
Across Melbourne’s UGB, anomalies are appearing as more detailed planning occurs and land uses change. The reason problems are emerging is varied but includes the following.
2.1.1 Boundary established prior to planning
The existing urban growth boundary was established prior to any detailed planning. Finalised in 2009, the boundary was:
■ Based on a pre-determined study area predominantly drawn around property boundaries or roads rather than the topography and physical features
■ Was not informed by any detailed planning, the size, servicing and sustainability of the future communities that would occupy the corridor were unknown
■ Was not informed by any detailed environmental and biodiversity assessment
■ Was not informed by any evaluation of agricultural capacity of the land and its ability to remain viable in association with the impact of urban development in proximity.
2.1.2 PSP’s and detailed planning – creating a need for change
More recently, since the establishment of the UGB, greater knowledge exists on not only planning for new urban development but a better approach to dealing with the fringe, through a number of planning actions. The UGB was established prior to this. Key recent processes include:
02 The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review
■ The Growth Corridor Plans (presenting a high level land use and infrastructure plan) was not completed until 2012. Effectively the growth area plans had to “fit into” a pre-established boundary.
■ More detailed planning as part of the PSP process and development of local policy.
■ Green Wedge Management Plans. Anomalies with the current UGB are being highlighted through Green Wedge Management Plans.
Problems are emerging on managing the interface; areas that are effectively conservation areas within the UGB and should better be managed as a green wedge.
Conversely opportunities to provide a more robust UGB, designing to a definitive physical constraint, with usually only a minor adjustment to the UGB remain unachievable through the processes described above.
2.1.3 A better understanding of the function of green wedges
As detailed green wedge management plans and more focussed development of Councils local policies emerge, combined with the preparation of PSP’s the boundary between urban development areas and rural and conservation areas is becoming re defined. Areas within structure plans are being identified for conservation purposes often integrating with areas outside the UGB while, in some cases, the PSP’s have anticipated future growth beyond the current UGB, providing for road links, open space links etc.(Greenvale R3 PSP).
It is fair to say that the boundary, in many locations is not well defined and would benefit from adjustment.
Plan Melbourne Refresh The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review
2.2 Examples of anomalies
25Officer Precinct Structure Plan
PS
PS
Car
dini
a
Roa
d
Princes Highway
Peck Road
CC
CC
PSCC
Creek
CC
CC
Princes Highway
Brown Road
Tiven
dale
R
oad
Bayv
iew
Road
Mc M
ullen
R
oad
May
Roa
d
Rix Road
Hickson Road
Gum Leaf Lane
Brun
t Roa
d
Step
hens
R
oad
Star
ling
Road
Whit
eside
R
oad
Stati
on
S
treet
Kenilworth Avenue
Thom
as
Stre
et
Princes Freeway
O’Ne
ill
R
oad
Old Princes Highway
PS
PS
PS
CC
CCCC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
PrS
PS PrS
PrS
PPSSS
PrS
PrSPrS
PS
PPS& SS
Gum Scrub Creek
Cardinia Creek
Transmission Easement
Gas Pipeline
Plan 5: Future Urban StructureOfficer Precinct Structure Plan
ref.: 3410344Udate: 16 September 2011
rev.: F-1drawn: DM/DL
checked: CD
planning & urban designmelbourne
© smec australia pty ltdabn 47 065 475 149
trading as smec urban
please note:This plan is based on preliminary information
only and may be subject to change as a result of formal Council/Authority advice, detailed site
investigations and confirmation by survey
1:15000 @ A3Scale: 1:7500 @ A1
0 150 300 450m
This plan has been prepared for Cardinia Shire Council. All enquiries
should be directed to Council’s strategic planning department on 1300 787 624
LEGEND
Movement Network
Residential Land
Employment LandMajor Activity Centre (MAC)
Neighbourhood Centres
Community and Schools
Open Space and Environment
Other Land
PrS
Precinct Structure Plan AreaUrban Growth Boundary
Arterial Road (VicRoads)Potential Future Arterial Road (VicRoads)Local Arterial / Connector Street (Boulevard)Connector StreetMain Street Access Street - Level 2Access Place / Street - Level 1 (important connection)Access Street - Level 1 with Landscape trailSignalised intersections (arterial roads only)Grade Separated CrossingRailway Line, Station & Potential Bus InterchangePPTN - Principal Public Transport Network (Bus)
Residential LandLarge Lot ResidentialEnvironmental Residential
MAC Core BusinessMAC Peripheral Commercial
Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC)Neighbourhood Convenience Centre (NCC)Core BusinessPeripheral Commercial
Community facilities and public uses(CC = Community Centre)Education facilities(PS = Primary School, PPS = Post Primary School,PrS = Private School, SS = Special School)
Public open space (unencumbered)Public open space (encumbered)Regional Open Space District sports reserves (8ha+)District ParksProposed pedestrian crossingsExisting creeksMajor Drainage LinesEcological Vegetation Classes (EVC’s) to be retained
Existing Major EasementsConservation Living AreaFuture Development Area (subject to EPBC approval)
0 75 150 225
Plan 5: Future Urban Structure
Figure 1 – Conservation Area, Officer PSP
2.2.1 Conservation Area, Officer PSP
Situation
The Officer PSP nominates, in the North West corner of the plan area, a conservation area, consisting of elevated remnant forest which integrates with bushland in the adjoining green wedge.
2.2 Examples of Anomalies
Implications
While the site will be managed for conservation, regardless of the location of the UGB, the site shares greater values with the green wedge and by removing it from within the urban growth boundary and placing it within the green wedge, the status as a conservation area will be reinforced and more appropriate green wedge planning provisions introduced. This is one of many examples where the UGB could be reduced.
005
Proposed UGB
002 The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review Plan Melbourne Refresh
2.2.2 Ranfurlie Golf Course, Cranbourne
Situation
An existing golf course surrounded by the urban growth boundary but effectively isolated from the balance of the green wedge but zoned green wedge zone.
Implications
Golf course uses are increasingly less viable, many are amalgamating, relocating and overall reducing the number of courses despite population growth. Should the golf course use no longer be viable into the future, there is no recourse to any other viable form of land use.
Agriculture would not be feasible given the urban interface and limitations of the site and the green wedge zone is overall very restrictive. Uses allowed within a green wedge zone are unlikely to be viable.
The siting of the UGB at this location has no tangible benefit to the green wedge as the site is effectively physically isolated from it.
RD
RO
SLY
N
WO
OD
LAN
DS
DA
ND
EN
ON
G- H
AS
TIN
GS
CARRBOYD
RD
CRANBO
URNE - F
RANKSTO
N
BALLARTO
RD
SURREY
DR
STA
NH
ILL
CH
EV
RO
N
AV
RD
RD
BALLARTO
RD
RD
RD
DA
ND
EN
ON
G -
HA
ST
ING
S
HALL
RD
EV
AN
S
RD
EV
AN
S
MA
UR
EE
N
TO
DD
CT
CL
NAVARRE
MA
UR
EE
N
CL
ELANDRA
WAY
MURTOA
CT
CT
IGAN
JIN
DA
LE
EG
ND
S
MCGU
NA
VA
RR
ED
R
DR
DR
CR
YS
TA
LG
DN
S
FR
AN
CIS
DR
WA
Y
CT
BRADLEY
BR
AD
LE
Y
SC
AR
BO
RO
UG
H
FISHBURNPL
CL
AV
SCARBOROUGH
NE
PT
UN
EP
L
FR
IEN
DS
HIP
CRANBOURNE - FRANKSTON
RD
AUGUSTACL
RIM
ESDON DR
DR
SCARBOROUGH
CL
LADY PENRHYN
AV
CL
CH
AR
LO
TT
E
AV
AV
SC
AR
BO
RO
UG
H
GVE
CR
WESTPORT
EA
GL
ES
CLIF
FE
CL
FERNDOWN
LA
HIN
CH
GV
MU
IRF
IELD
BROOKLAND
SP
RIN
GW
AT
ER
SP
RIN
GW
AT
ER
CRAMSTEL
CR
BLA
INR
OE
STONEHAVEN
CR
PL
DURNOCH
PL
GREENS
FO
RM
BY
PL
FORMBY
PA
RK
ST
ON
E
AV G
RAC
EHILL
FE
RN
HIL
L
ELGIN
MEWS
GAN
TO
N
BELFRY
TH
E
VIS
TA
GV
BIR
KDALE
AV
AV
AV
BU
ND
OR
AN
CT
AR
K
WICKLOW
LO
W
BAIL
DO
R
SIL
VE
RS
TO
NE
DR
DR
RVILLE
CR
SUNNINGDALE
CR
MEW
S
BE
LF
RY
TH
E
WATE
GD
ALE
WHITCOMBE
MEWS
VIS
TA
SAU
NTO
N
DR
TC
E
CR
SU
NN
IN
PORTR
USH
PO
RTR
USH
DR
BVD
TCE
CT
LO
NG
HIR
ST
AV
VIEW
SUNN
ING
DALE
BE
LVO
IRC
T
KILDAR
E
RD
HUNTINGDALECL
DR
PREST GREEN
VIEW
LOCHGREEN
WICK
LY
TH
AM
PL
CL
GALWAY
SH
AN
DO
N
CH
ER
RY
HIL
LS
CT
PL
AC
E
FIRESTONE
MERION VISTA
GREEN
ROSSLARE
FERNDOWN DR
DR
ATLANTA GLEN
BR
OA
DS
TO
NE
CR
DU
NF
ER
LIN
E
DR
ELK
TU
RN
ELK
CT
CH
ER
RY
HIL
LS
WA
Y
ST MELLION
KINGSBARN CT
CR
DUNFERLINE
RE
T
TURN
CO
NN
IE
SOTTILE
CT
CH
ER
RY
HIL
LS
BIRCHWOOD
CE
ME
TE
RY
DR
GRANDEUR
DR
ST
EV
EN
SO
NS
RDBALLARTO
HEATHERWOOD
CT
ELC
AN
HAZELMERE
AV
ELMWOOD
PL
AV
GREENBRIAR
PL
HAZELMERE
AV
HA
ZE
LM
ER
E
WAY
ASHBROOK
OAKMONT
FLO
RE
NC
E
RD
CR
WAY
CL W
ALLAC
E
WA
LLA
CE
RD
RD
DR
THOMAS CR
FA
IRB
AI R
N
CAMPBELL
WA
LRD
MO
NA
HA
NS
ELA
INE
HA
RR
ISO
N
CT
DR
SLADEN
NEEROONDACONCORD
PL
HIL
DA
PL
JO
SE
PH
SARNO
CT
BA
NK
S
MO
NA
HA
NS
LAWSON
ISAACSMITH
CL
RD
PLK
URT
ANNE
CLAYTON
DR
CR
JA
JA
ME
SC
OO
K
CT
CORONET
RD
RD
WAY
CT
CT
SUSAN
RD
VALE
LA
CE
PARK
CT
ANNE
COOK
DR
MES
TA
YLO
R
VA
LE
RIE
RD
VALEPARK
ST
BRUCE
FA
IRB
AIR
N
CR
TH
OM
AS
COCHRANE
ST
TA
YL
OR
CRANBOURNE
BA
NK
S
RD
O'T
OO
LE
S
RD
BROWNS
RD
BR
OW
NS
RD
DA
ND
EN
ON
G -
H
AS
TIN
GS
LA
NG
LE
Y
LANGLEY
RD
CA
RR
AM
AR
RD
RD
KEIPHA
WA
ND
A
RD
WATERDALE
PE
AR
CE
DA
LE
RD
BROWNS
CA
RR
AM
AR
RD
RD
WATERDALE
RD
RD
MAINTOP
KE
RO
NA
CT
WE
AN
DO
N
SETTLERS
CT
CL
WAY
CT
GR
OS
BY
MALLOY
STATION
CC
T
AD
RIA
NA
AD
RIA
NA
CC
T
BELLIS
CREEK WAY
CCT
CA
LLIS
TA
ST
BELVISTA
WAY
WA
TE
RH
OU
SE
CT
ES
PIE
WAY
WATERHOUSE
WAY
WA
TER
HO
RU
N
BURR
IDG
ECT
WA
YU
SE
GR
EE
NW
OO
D
CT
WA
Y
WA
Y
WA
LT
ER
CT
MA
DE
LY
N
WA
LT
ER
LA
SM
ITH
S
RDC
T
MA
DE
LY
N
RD
RD
LA
BROWNS
FLE
TC
HE
R
RD
CASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONCASEY PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
AMENDMENT C166
Scale: 1:9,997
200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 m
Figure 2 – Ranfurlie Golf Course, Cranbourne
Proposed UGB
Land to be incorporated with the UGB
Plan Melbourne Refresh The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review006
2.2.3 Baxter Station Precinct
Situation
The Baxter railway station, on an existing electrified rail line is within a green wedge zone and separated from the nearby residentially zoned land within the UGB by a narrow belt of green wedge zoned land containing low density/ rural residential subdivision.
Implications
An opportunity to activate a station precinct and facilitate access to a station cannot be achieved at this location with the current planning scheme provisions. A minor shift to the UGB will create a better serviced residential/station activity node with negligible impact on the green wedge as a whole.
AV
AV
AV
HIL
LC
RE
ST
AV
RD
HIL
LC
RE
ST
RD
COOGEE
MA
NLY
HEATHERHILL
AV
GLENELG
AV
SA
ND
GA
TE
MARGATE
CT
CRATHIE
RD
WETTENHALL
RO
BIN
IA
AV
AV
AV
KENILW
ORTH
AV
AV
WALLA
CE
AV
RD
HIGHVIEW GU
LW
A
KIL
DA
RE
BARWON
MELALEUCA
CT
PI ME LIA
CT
DR
CL
HEATHMONT
KA
LM
IA
CL
BORONIA
ERICA ST
RD
WA
TT
LE
ST
ST
VA
LLE
Y
SAGES
ST
OT
TS
CT
TH
E
BALLINTYNE
CT
CO
NC
OU
RS
E
RD
RD
RD
BAXTER- TOORADIN
RD
CT
RO
SEW
OOD
CR
CT
SETT
LE
RS
POLLY
KELLY
PL
RD
RISE
CL
COZENS
DONN ELLY
BR
OO
KLY
N
LA
PUTNEY
SQ
CT
LERS
SETT
LUKE
CO
RR
EA
ROBINSONS
PL
OCTAVIUS
TH
ER
NE
PLA
CL
CO
LUM
BANSC
L
RALE
ON
AV G
OLF LIN
KS
CT
CE
DR
LANSVALE
MC
MU
RT
RY
MIR
AN
DA
CT
RALEO
N
AV
WAY
RO
MU
ALD
WA
Y
BAR
GU
ILD
FO
RD
CL
DW ELL AV
AV
SC
RE
EN
CT
KIA
ND
RA
HIL
LC
RE
ST
WALLACE
ST
KENILWORTH
CASSIA
WANDELLA
ME
RIB
AHCT
RD
ST
PE
RIC
OE
GR
RD
OU
TLO
OK
AV
KENT
GR
LEAWAR
RA
GLEN
VIEW
LEE
LI
PDE
CT
MERWICK
CT
AV
RD BA
RM
AH
STKARA
WO
OD
SID
E
TIN
TE
RN
CT
BLACKWOODCT
WOODSIDE
RD
LIL
ACAV
ST
SH
E
HIGHLAND
LEATH
ER
WO
OD
DA
K
SU
ND
OW
N
FR
AN
KS
TO
N - F
LIN
DE
RS
PMENT
CRESTVIEW
PA
LM
AC
T
WLK
CT
ESCARDR
HIGHLAND
DR
MANUKA CT
DR HIG
HL
AN
D
CT
OR
EG
ON
CL
LA
UR
EN
CT
TH
E
THE
TH
E
GR
AN
GE
ST
ROBINSONS
FR
AN
CIS
CA
N NAVARRE
CTRD
BARTLETT
ST
ESCARPMENT
AV
GEEBUNG
GREPEVIEW CT
LA
CABERNET
CT
PIN
OT
ME
RLO
TC
T
CT
WIN
EV
IEW
HEN
DRA
CT
THORPGOLD CT
PA
ULIN
EC
T
STRAND
EN
CLA
VE
AV
LA
STO
TT
SLA
MANOR
AV
ED
INB
UR
GH
CT
PL
DR
SA
ND
ALW
OO
DR
ET
RE
AT
ELD
ER
BE
RR
Y
BUNDY
TR
EE
CR
EE
PE
RP
L
ST
LO
MA
TIA
CL
CL
HE
AT
HW
RE
N
HEATHWREN
CL
CASALE
RD
ROMM
ECL
AE
LP
H
CT
RA
AV
CT
ELLESMERE
JERO MECT
DA
RIU
S
DARIUS
TAVERNERSQUARE
AV MA
CT
RILLAC
GO
LF LINKS
RA
PH
AE
L
EILK
DA
CT
ELDORADO
TH
CHAMCT
OUNI
RT
CT
LEFEVRE
CT
KHA
CR
CALLANTINA
SQ
CASTILLON
CT
KEN
SIN
GTO
N
CT
ABBEY
BALM
ORAL
CT
BLE
NH
EM
PL
AV
CT
DR
KE
NS
ING
TO
N
AV
CT
STANSFIELD
MAN
OR
WO
OLM
ER
GLE
ND
EN
NIN
G
CT
CT
CT
HE
AT
HE
RH
ILL
LA
ND
SD
OW
NE
ST
CT
LASCELLES
CT
SHEW
SBU
RYR
D
SAXONWOOD
RD
PAR
TR
IDG
E
GREENKNOWE
AV
OU
M
SH
AX
T
ON
COLB
ERT
DR
MAN
OR
DR
CT
CT
CO
LBER
T
MA
NO
R
CT
CT
CT BORDEAUXFURNEAUX
GASCOYNE
CT
ST
DO
RC
HE C
T
DR
CR
HE
T
HIL
LTHE RISE
PIN
E
LOCHEAR
N
CT
RD
ME
WS
TH
E DR
PL
TRALE
A
BALLYMORE
CT
CR
WURRINDI
GLE
NVIE
W
CT
THE
FIL
LIA
NS
CT
ST
.
SS ACTRO H
S
CA
RLIS
LE
CT
PDE
DR
CT
PLCO
OBA
CTMYRTLE
CT
LOCHABERTR
OS
SA
CH
S
AV
LERWICK
TU
RN
BE
RR
YC
T
CA
LLE
ND
ER
CT
ABBEYG
ATE
CT C
T
CR
RUSSETT
CH
UR
GB
O
CT
ER
CH
AN
TIL
LY
KE
CT
CT
ELDI AN
LORI ET
BALL
E
CT
LIPTON
DU CTNR
AV
LA
AV
CT
MA
CR
OS
TY
CT
CT
TE
RT
ULLIA
N
KENMO
RE
CT
CT
ER
ON
XTBU
LINLITHGOW
GA
TT
INA
RA
EN
JIN
DA
LE
EC
T
FINISTERRE
HE
ATH
ER
HIL
L
CT
DEVEREAUX
EC FR
R UTLA
SQBALMERINO
CT
JUSTIN
HEATHERHILL AQ
UAR
IUS
CTNE
LITT
LECT
CT
SAMANTHA
NU
RLA
BRIGANTI
DR
CT
CT
ANCT
SCACE
BODALLA
RD
REBECCA
CL
WIL
LO
W
ALIC
IAC
TPL
MALURA
CT
CT
ON
DE
AN
FROBISHER
SE
AQ
UE
STA
RD
ST
WITT ENBERG
AMBY
QU WA
KO
OL
KILBURN
SCHO
ONER B
AY
COU
RA
HE
LS
AL
CT
AD
MIR
ALS
CT
AL
AV
CL
WE C
T
D
WILLOW
RY
DME
NLA
WHITFORD
CT
CHATTERLEY
GR
ETEL
CT
CT
AV
NIKI
CT
AQUA
RI
HILLTOP
MEWS
CTOR
ND
CO
NGAL
CHCTELE
DR
DR
US
CT
APPOLLO
MO
RN
ING
TO
N
PE
NIN
SU
LA
OU
CT
NIRVANAGE
S
CT
CT
DR
SISKA
OE
FERNDALE
CR
VARC
CT
WAY
CT
MUR RAY CL
ER
MIM
OS
A
CT
MO
OLA CT
RD
ULRIC
NA OMI
CT
ALTAIR CL
CT
ISA
BE
LLA
CT
BIARRITZ
CL
DR
HARDWICKE
CT
INVERMAY
CT
LE
CR
DR
JULIANA
CI RC
WOLM
AN
(PR
OP
OS
ED
CT
RD
McC
LE
LLA
ND
SHERWOOD
BIRDSWOODCT
CR
YARRABEE
L
QUANDONG
KIMBA
AC
AC
IA
DR
IPTON
CT
CR
KIT
AR
AC
T
AN
A
CT
WILLOW
WA
TT
LE
TR
EE
PA
RK
VIE
W
RD
DA
ME
WS
TA
BO
R
OR
OLI P
L
NG
N
BA
FOWHIT RDWAY
CLAC TON
DR
CT
SE
LI N
A
CT DR
DA
LE
REN
MUIR
FAYGATE
KE EYNL
CT
FE
RN
CT
RD McC
LE
LLA
ND
CT
ER
IC
CR
AN
HA
VE
N
NORTH
LA
RD
BA
RR
ET
TS
CLE
MA
C
RD
BE
LL
AR
Y
PL
WOODLEA
CHADWICKCL
ALD
ER
SH
OT
DR
DR
McC
LE
LLA
ND
CR
AN
HA
VE
N
RD
JA
NE
PL
TR
IMB
LE
FREEMAN
DR
CT
JOHN ST
JO
HN
CO
LIN
CT
RD
CRANHAVEN
ST
RD
RD
PL
BECKENHAM
CRANHAVEN
FW
Y)
ROBINSONS
FLA
ME
BLACK
RO
BIN
WA
TT
LE
BIR
D
CR
RED
DR
RE
D
GR
EY
CT
WATTLEBIRD
CR
GLID
ER
BR
OW
N
BIL
LC
T
THO
RN
PL
BLACK
DR
CT
QU
AIL
PE
TER
CH
AN
CE
CR
KITE
PL
RD
DR
WALLABY
WO
OD
DU
CK
CT
SPR
ING
HIL
L
PL
BLACK SHEOAK
GREENHOOD
BR
O
NZE WIN
G RD
NORTH
RD
ANTHONY
PL
CT
PL
DU
NN
CT
CLNATALIE
LIS
A
DUNNCR
WARRINDALE
WA
Y
CR
LAURENTEN
RD
NO
RW
AR
RE
N
CT
BOLTON
HE
NS
HA
W
ST
RD
KORINA CT CTELANA
MIL
NE
MAXWELL
KURANDA
RO
BIN
ECHIDNACL
FLA
ME
DR
WALLABY
WAG
TAIL
CT S
UG
AR
FR
AN
CIS
CRANHAVEN
TW
EE
DC
TCR
LA
PW
ING
TYRONEST
CTG
RASSW
REN CL
CT
RO
NE
TY
ST
BARRETTS
RD
CL
ANTRIM
LYNDHURSTCT
PL
CT
PL
CT
RD
WA
RR
AN
DY
TE
BAXTER - TOORADIN
CT
GARDEN
BRAE
KIALLA
TR
EN
TH
AM
NORVAL
PL
WA
Y
NORBERT
NORTHA
CT
DR
RD
ROBINSONS
MARTLESHAM
NEWTO
N
AV
NEWTON
RD
WA
RR
AN
DY
TE
GUMHILL
GUM
DR
HILL
CA
VIL
L
NO
RW
AR
RE
N
WA
RR
AN
DY
TE
WAHGUNYAH
BEVNOL
WA
Y
CL
PL
ILLA
WA
RR
A
CT
CL
RD
CT
DA
RD
CRANBOURNE-FRANKSTON
RD
MARGARET
JO
HN
LL
OY
D
ST
TRINITY DR
CLA
RE
MO
NT
TRINITY
FRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISIONFRANKSTON PLANNING SCHEME - LOCAL PROVISION
AMENDMENT C74
Scale: 1:9,996
200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 m
Figure 4 – Baxter Station Precinct
Proposed UGB
Land to be incorporated with the UGB
The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review Plan Melbourne Refresh 007
2.2.4 Donnybrook Conservation Areas
Situation
Significant areas of land in Melbourne’s north are likely to be permanently reserved for conservation purposes in the Donnybrook area, pending the final review being undertaking by the MPA.
Implications
Contiguous with the rural green wedge areas these sites will be compromised by proximity to urban development but managed in effectively the same way as green wedges, where contiguous with the green wedge, the should be included within them.
2.2.5 Other anomalies
Across the entire urban growth boundary many other minor anomalies and inconsistencies are emerging as more detailed planning and policy development occurs. Some of these have been recognised through previous reviews such as the logical inclusions process and recommended for future review, a process that has yet to be implemented.
Figure 7 provides an indication of just some of the locations where adjustments to the UGB are justified, both reducing and expanding the boundary depending on the location.
Figure 5 – Donnybrook Conservation Areas
Proposed UGB
001 Plan Melbourne Refresh The Importance of a Growth Boundary Review008
Figure 7 – Other identified anomalies within the current UGB
Greenvale West A Case Study Plan Melbourne Refresh009
3.1 Existing Conditions
Existing Land us within Greenvale West Within the Urban Growth Boundary, land is predominantly identified for residential development.
Outside the UGB land use is fragmented and consists of 5-6 “farming” properties, predominantly cattle grazing,surrounded by smaller “rural lifestyle” and”rural living” allotments and the extractive industry site.
Overall, land within the OMR is not farmland in viable units and productive agriculture is minimal, grazing being the only form of land management where practiced.
The Urban Growth BoundaryThe existing Urban Growth Boundary extends along Mickleham Road to a property boundary where it ‘diverts’ around property title boundaries. Apart from Mickleham Road, the UGB has been located on property boundaries with urban development interfacing directly with grazing land.
03 Greenvale West A Case Study
* Photos showing current Urban Growth Boundary.
Plan Melbourne Refresh Greenvale West A Case Study
A small Isolated CommunityThe location of the UGB in the west and Greenvale Reservoir in the east creates a small area dedicated to residential development with a capacity for not more than 2300 lots. Containing most of the recently approved Hume Greenvale “R3” precinct structure plan.
The New community does not reach critical mass to support retail, school and community centre. This is a concern expressly raised by Hume City Council in the panel hearing for “R3”, specifically, the panel report commented that
“Council objects to the provision of a community centre in the Greenvale West R3 PSP area stating it, along with R1 and the Providence estate do not create sufficient demand for a community facility of the scale and cost proposed by the GAA”
Specific concerns of Hume are that the developing community is;
■ significantly remote from the established Greenvale Community south of Somerton Road.
■ is bounded by low density residential to the south, Greenvale reservoir to the East and rural land to the west and north.
■ the population is too small to support Council provided community services.
ServicingThe area is capable of being serviced beyond the existing UGB. Yarra Valley Water has designed a scheme for Greenvale west, reliant upon a rising main sewer to Westmeadows main.
Preliminary concepts for drainage indicate that the small catchment can be serviced by a storm water treatment mechanism reliant upon pond treatment at the end of line with treatment ponds located in the south of the development area, immediately north of Somerton Road.
010
The area is capable of being serviced beyond the existing UGB. Yarra Valley Water has designed a scheme for Greenvale west, reliant upon a rising main sewer to Westmeadows main.
Figure 8 – Servicing Plan
Greenvale West A Case Study Plan Melbourne Refresh 011
Proximity to Melbourne AirportMelbourne Airport has well established planning for runway approaches and associated aircraft noise.
Utilising the established ANEF modelling, the Hume Planning Scheme implements both the “Airport Environs Overlay NO1” for high impact noise areas above the 20ANEF (the limit for residential development) and the “Airport Environs Overlay NO2” for lesser impacted areas that will allow for residential development subject to meeting certain requirements.
More recently, Melbourne Airport has undertaken additional noise modelling based on Decibel level to frequency of movements. Figure 9 is the airport noise modelling scenarios and impact areas down to 60 dba at 6 movements at night. While not an adopted standard, if applied, noise impacts will impact widely across much of Melbourne but will not impact on Greenvale West. Impacts will extend only to woodlands park, quarry and OMR. Greenvale West, as identified in this submission will not be impacted upon by any available modelled noise contour.
Extractive industry The extractive industry site has a role to play in implementing a long term, sustainable and permanent green belt for Melbourne. While the extractive industry site has at least 30 years life , it will ultimately cease operation. At this point and providing that buffers are preserved as open space as part of any urban development proposal, the quarry site presents no impediment to urban development and, ultimately, can form an extension of parkland.
BiodiversityBiodiversity site assessments as part of the logical inclusions indicated that only small remnant areas of redgum woodland and some grassland and habitat areas exist on the Moonee ponds creek alignment. Overall the property has been heavily grazed and managed for grazing and is considerably disturbed. Redgum woodland retention has been planned for in concepts for Greenvale West.
Greenvale West, as identified in this submission will not be impacted upon by any available modelled noise contour.
012
Figure 9 – Greenvale West - Regional Context Airport Analysis
Greenvale West A Case Study Plan Melbourne Refresh 013
3.2 Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee
Greenvale West formed part of a submission to the logical inclusions process. The planning argument for Greenvale West focused on the need to build a viable and socially sustainable community west of the Greenvale Reservoir. The Advisory Committee recommended that the area be included stating:
“Land…South of Dunhelen Lane should be included within the Urban Growth boundary” and “Land….north of Dunhelen Lane should not be included in the Urban growth Boundary as part of this process but may merit further consideration as part of a later review”.
Despite the strong recommendation, the area was not included in the UGB. Comment was made at the announcement of the logical inclusions decision that the area had merit “subject to further investigation”
It is submitted that the metropolitan strategy presents the best opportunity to complete that investigation and confirm a boundary that responds to the advisory committees recommendations and plans for Greenvale West overall.
RECOMMENDED AREA FOR INCLUSION
Plan Melbourne Refresh Plan Melbourne 2014 and the Advisory Commitee014
04 Plan Melbourne 2014 and the Advisory Committee4.1 Plan Melbourne 2014Plan Melbourne contains within its original draft an action that provides a basis for reviewing and establishing a final metropolitan boundary, having regard to the need to resolve the numerous anomalies, including those defined above.
6.1.1 Of Plan Melbourne (2014) states “Confirm the mechanism and lock in a permanent boundary”
In the short term. Specifically it states;
■ Confirm a mechanism to lock in a permanent settlement boundary around Melbourne’s built up metropolitan area
■ Establish a permanent metropolitan boundary to replace the Urban Growth Boundary having regard to;
▬ - input from local councils
▬ - The report of the logical inclusions advisory committee 2011
▬ - Melbourne’s natural values and topographical features
▬ - Boundaries formed by major infrastructure
This is a sound recommendation and will enable a full review of recent strategic planning and policy developed by Local Authorities and State Government since the establishment of the current UGB to be reviewed a more robust and sustainable UGB established that has regard to:
■ Building viable residential communities
■ More clearly separating what will be permanent rural/conservation areas into the green wedges
■ Developing a boundary that responds to clearly defined physical barriers, presenting an opportunity to better design a robust rural/urban interface.
4.2 Plan Melbourne Refresh - Advisory Committee Recommendation
The Plan Melbourne Refresh advisory committee report recommendations support the retention of the wording in section 6.1.1 of plan Melbourne.
The considered opinion of the advisory committee for Plan Melbourne 2014 and Plan Melbourne refresh, after due consideration on both occasions was to recommend that the provision remain.
Specifically, page 89, recommendation 73 “move Initiative 6.1.1 Confirm the mechanism and lock in a permanent boundary to the Housing Choice and Affordability chapter”.
015
05 Summary
After full and due assessment of the issue of a UGB, considering all current influences, factors and emerging issues, the Advisory Committee has maintained a consistent position in drafting both versions of Plan Melbourne.
No argument has been made nor did a case present anywhere to justifiably counter the position of the original Plan Melbourne 2014 and the continuing position of the Advisory Committee.
There has been no sound case or any degree of investigation presented to justify the recommendations of Plan Melbourne refresh in locking in the current UGB, anomalies and all.
There is a clear position that the current UGB requires change in response to more recent planning, detailed refining and the remedying of the many minor and outstanding anomalies include a full and detailed response to outstanding logical inclusions committee recommendations.
Plan Melbourne Refresh A Vision For Greenvale West017
Plan Melbourne Refresh must adhere to the consistent position of the advisory committee and its recommendations to implement what is effectively section 6.1.1 of Plan Melbourne 2014 and the recommendations of the Plan Melbourne Refresh advisory committee recommendation:
■ “Confirm a mechanism to lock in a permanent settlement boundary around Melbourne’s built up metropolitan area
■ Establish a permanent metropolitan boundary to replace the Urban Growth Boundary having regard to;
▬ Input from local councils
▬ The report of the logical inclusions advisory committee 2011
▬ Melbourne’s natural values and topographical features
▬ Boundaries formed by major infrastructure
06 Required Response from Plan Melbourne
Conclusion Plan Melbourne Refresh
Plan Melbourne overall presents as a sound planning strategy, consistent with its original objectives and recommended outcomes. A notable exception is the change to the original section 6.1.1, the implementation of a final and informed setting of the Urban Growth Boundary. This as an objective for Melbourne is important and Plan Melbourne should retain the provision in accordance with the advice of the Ministerial Advisory Committee.
018
07 Conclusion