planning and environment act panel...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Bayside Planning Scheme

Amendments C113, C114 and C115

Mandatory provisions for the Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street Activity Centres

14 January 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C113, C114 and C115

Mandatory provisions for the Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street Activity Centres

Con Tsotsoros, Chair Ian Walters, Member

Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C113, C114 and C115 Panel Report 14 January 2015

Contents

Page

Amendments/Panel Process ............................................................................................... iv

Executive summary ............................................................................................................... i

1 The Proposal ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The exhibited Amendments .................................................................................... 1 1.2 Changes since exhibition ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 The subject sites and surrounds .............................................................................. 2 1.4 Background to the proposal .................................................................................... 3 1.5 Authorisation ........................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Panel’s Direction ...................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 5

2 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Planning Policy Framework ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................... 7 2.3 Plan Melbourne ....................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Structure Plans ........................................................................................................ 7 2.5 Housing Growth Model Methodology Report, December 2010 ............................. 7 2.6 Bayside Housing Strategy, September 2012 ........................................................... 8 2.7 Relevant Planning Scheme Amendments ............................................................. 10 2.8 Planning Practice Notes ......................................................................................... 10

3 The role of mandatory provisions ............................................................................. 13 3.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 13 3.3 Relevant amendments .......................................................................................... 14 3.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 14 3.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 15

4 Mandatory maximum building heights in the commercial areas ............................... 17 4.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 17 4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 28 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 30

5 Sandringham Village precinct realignment ................................................................ 31 5.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 31 5.2 The issue ................................................................................................................ 32 5.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 32 5.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 33 5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 36

Appendix A List of Submitters

Appendix B List of Documents


List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Anticipated levels of growth in activity centres ...................................................... 8

Table 2 Revised proposals for Sandringham Village since Amendment C100 .................. 31

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Sandringham Village Framework Plan (C113) ......................................................... 2

Figure 2 Bay Street Centre Framework Plan (C114) .............................................................. 2

Figure 3 Church Street Activity Centre (C115) ...................................................................... 3

Figure 4 Bayside Residential Framework Plan ...................................................................... 9

Figure 5 Figures in SJB Urban report for modelled development envelopes on Bay Street (labels added) ................................................................................. 20

Figure 6 Mercy aged care facility ‐ Comparison of five and three storey built form ....................................................................................................................... 34


List of Abbreviations

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (now DELWP)

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

PPN58 Structure Planning for Activity Centres, April 2010 ‐ Planning Practice Note 58

PPN59 The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes, September 2010 ‐ Planning Practice Note 59

PPN60 Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres, April 2010 ‐ Planning Practice Note 60

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Amendments/Panel Process

Amendments

The Amendments Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C113, C114 and C115

Common name Mandatory provisions for the Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street Activity Centres

Subject land The Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street Activity Centres as shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

Purpose of Amendments The Amendments propose to introduce mandatory maximum building heights to:

- Sandringham Village Activity Centre (Amendment C113) - Bay Street Activity Centre (Amendment C114) - Church Street Activity Centre (Amendment C115)

Planning Authority and Proponent

Bayside City Council (Council)

Authorisation The Amendments were authorised (A02346, A02347 and A02348) on 30 May 2013. Amendment C113 was reauthorised on 11 December 2013. Details about authorisation are provided at Chapter 1.5.

Exhibition The Amendments were publicly exhibited from 1 April to 5 May 2014


Panel Process

The Panel Con Tsotsoros, Chair

Ian Walters, Member

Panel request At its meeting of 16 September 2014, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel.

Appointment The Panel was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 10 October 2014.

Directions Hearing 29 October 2014 at the Sandringham office of Bayside City Council

Panel Hearing 1 December 2014 at the Sandringham office of Bayside City Council

2 and 5 December 2014 at the Sandringham Football Club

Site Inspections 29 October 2014

Submissions 121 submissions for Amendment C113

22 submissions for Amendment C114

23 submissions for Amendment C115

Appearances Bayside City Council represented by Mr Terry Montebello of Maddocks

Save Sandy Village represented by Ms Sarah Henry

Mr David Robbins

Ms Fiona Best

Mr Andrew Piddington

Mr Robert and Ms Carole Boyd

Autumn Care Properties represented by Mr Travis Finlayson of Ratio Consultants

Regis Aged Care represented by Ms Natalie Bannister of Hall and Wilcox Lawyers and calling the following expert witness:

- Ms Sarah Horsfield on planning

Knowles Group represented by Mr Chris Canavan QC, with Ms Nicola Collingwood of Sophie Jordan Consulting and calling the following expert witness:

- Mr Andrew Biacsi of Contour Consultants on planning

Mr Chris Bishop

Mr Keith Mutimer represented by Mr Robert Wilson

Coda Properties represented by Joseph Indomenico of Tract Consultants

John Kelly

Date of this Report 14 January 2015


Page i

Executive summary

The Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street activity centres are places of local significance within Melbourne’s Southern Subregion which is expected to accommodate an additional 400,000 to 480,000 people by 2031. Each centre is built around a train station, providing access to Melbourne’s central city.

Considerable local strategic work has been undertaken including structure plans for each centre, the Bayside Housing Strategy and Housing Growth Model. Amendments C100, C101 and C102 implemented the structure plans for Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street respectively.

A Planning Panel that heard all three amendments concurrently, concluded that applying mandatory provisions in the centres was at odds with the metropolitan planning strategy and the Bayside Planning Scheme. The C100‐C102 Panel recommended no mandatory provisions in the commercial areas and in areas where existing or approved building heights already exceeded the proposed maximum heights.

Aspects of Amendments C113, C114 and C115 revisited proposals that were considered by the C100 ‐ C102 Panel. Although the present Panel could not find any relevant change in planning circumstances to justify the reconsideration, it considered the three Amendments on their own merits.

Council cautioned the Panel about using Planning Practice Notes PPN59 (The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes) and PPN60 (Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres). It submitted that recent changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions have resulted in a new planning system that is more favourable towards mandatory provisions, making the Practice Notes ‘severely out of date’. The Panel finds that the Victoria Planning Provisions continue to be performance based and that there is a role for mandatory provisions in exceptional circumstances where justified and necessary. Practice Notes PPN59 and PPN60 are therefore current and relevant.

Having considered all submissions and expert evidence, the Panel concludes:

There are insufficient strategic bases to justify the application of mandatory maximum heights in the Commercial zones of the three activity centres.

A separate Precinct E2 is warranted in Sandringham Village to recognise existing and approved development that is higher than three storeys. There is insufficient strategic justification to warrant a mandatory maximum 11 metre (3 storeys) building height.

The existing mandatory 11 metre (3 storey) building height in Precinct E provides the buffer to protect low density residential areas outside of the activity centre from larger scale development in the activity centre core.

A review of built form and design related provisions in each overlay would have been of greater benefit because not all concerns were related to height.

It is evident that there is support for specified heights by Council and submitters. Although there is no case for mandatory maximum heights, the strong preference for specific heights is already reflected in the existing planning scheme provisions. Preferred maximum heights are not to be exceeded unless the proposal provides an exemplary response to the site, its context, design objectives and other policy in the planning scheme. The Panel understands


Page ii

that it takes time and resources to participate in the permit process, however, this is the stage where specific details about a proposal are known.

Recommendation

For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends that Amendments C113, C114 and C115 to the Bayside Planning Scheme be abandoned.


Page 1 of 40

1 The Proposal

1.1 The exhibited Amendments

Amendment C113 (Sandringham Village), as exhibited, proposes to:

Amend DDO8 to: - introduce mandatory maximum building heights in the business precinct - delete Precinct E2 (preferred 11 metre maximum height and mandatory 19 metre

maximum height) - apply Precinct E provisions (mandatory 11 metre maximum height) over the Precinct

E2 area

Amend Clause 21.11‐1 to: - reflect mandatory heights in the business precincts - remove reference to Precinct E2

Introduce the General Residential Zone into the Bayside Planning Scheme

Rezone land currently in Precinct E2 from Residential 1 Zone (now General Residential Zone Schedule 1 with no maximum height) to the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (with a mandatory 11 metre maximum height).

Amendment C114 (Bay Street, Brighton), as exhibited, proposes to:

Amend DDO10 to include mandatory height requirements in the business precincts

Amend Clause 21.11 to reflect mandatory heights in the business precincts of the Bay Street Major Activity Centre Structure Plan.

Amendment C115 (Church Street, Brighton), as exhibited proposes to:

Amend DDO11 to include mandatory height requirements in the business precincts

Amend Clause 21.11 to reflect mandatory heights in the business precincts.

For all three Amendments, expand the ability to add a metre to the building height where the slope is 2.5 degrees or greater across all precincts.

1.2 Changes since exhibition

Since exhibition:

Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C106 introduced Bayside’s new residential zones, including the General Residential Zone in Sandringham Village.

Council further amended DDO8, DDO10 and DDO11 to reflect changes introduced by Amendment C106. Council has also deleted the Residential 1 Zone schedule section of sub‐clause 2.0 of DDO8.


Page 2 of 40

1.3 The subject sites and surrounds

Figure 1 Sandringham Village Framework Plan (C113)

Figure 2 Bay Street Centre Framework Plan (C114)


Page 3 of 40

Figure 3 Church Street Activity Centre (C115)

Figures 1, 2 and 3 source: Clause 21.11, Bayside Planning Scheme

1.4 Background to the proposal

November 2004 Council engaged Planisphere to prepare a structure plan for its major activity centres

November 2006 Council adopted the final structure plans

17 July 2012 Council resolved to pursue mandatory height provisions in the four activity centres subject to Amendments C100, C101, C102 and C103

11 September 2012 Council adopted the Bayside Housing Strategy

9 May 2013 Amendments C100 and C102 were gazetted

30 May 2013 Minister for Planning authorised Amendments C113, C114 and C115

4 July 2013 Amendments C101 and C103 were gazetted

27 August 2013 At its meeting, Council resolved, in response to a petition with 1,093 signatures, to seek reauthorisation of Amendment C113 to reduce the maximum height limit in Precinct E2 from five storeys to three storeys.

11 December 2013 Minister for Planning re‐authorised, subject to conditions, Amendment C113 to reduce the maximum height limit in Precinct E2

22 May 2014 Plan Melbourne was released


Page 4 of 40

30 May 2014 Plan Melbourne was introduced into the SPPF of the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes through Amendment VC106

19 June 2014 The Residential Growth Zone, the General Residential Zone, and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone were introduced into the planning scheme through Bayside Amendment C106

16 September 2014 Council requested that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel for Amendments C113, C114 and C115

1.5 Authorisation

Amendments C113, C114 and C115 were authorised under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 30 May 2013 (Authorisation Nos A02346, A02347 and A02248 respectively). Each authorisation was subject to the following common conditions:

The amendment documents should be modified to include only those proposed changes that have not been considered as part of amendments C100 to C103.

Council should identify those sites within Major Activities Areas with already constructed or permitted buildings that exceed the proposed maximum heights on land affected by the amendments and exhibit this information with the amendment documents.

The amendments must not be exhibited until decisions have been made on amendments C101 and C103.

In response to a request from Council, Amendment C113 was reauthorised under delegation from the Minister for Planning to reduce the maximum height for the area identified as Precinct E2 in DDO8 from five storeys (19 metres) to three storeys (11 metres). In addition to previous conditions, reauthorisation was subject to the following condition:

The amendment documents should be modified to include only those proposed changes that have not been considered as part of Amendment C100, with the exception of height controls proposed for the residential land bounded by Trentham Street and Sandringham, Fernhill and Bay roads.

1.6 Panel’s Direction

In its letter to parties dated 30 October 2014, the Panel directed (Direction 9) that Council provide:

a. Ministerial letter of authorisation for each of the amendments.

b. For each of the exhibited amendments, an assessment of the mandatory maximum building heights proposed for each centre against Practice Note 59: The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes and Practice Note 60: Height and setback controls for activity centres. Specifically, the Panel seeks to understand the exceptional circumstances that justify mandatory maximum building heights.


Page 5 of 40

c. An outline of any circumstances that have changed since Amendments C100, C101 and C102 were gazetted in May and July 2013 that led to the preparation of Amendments C113, C114 and C115.

Council’s response to Direction 9b is discussed throughout the report.

1.7 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Planning Context

Mandatory maximum building heights in the commercial areas

Sandringham Village precinct realignment.


Page 6 of 40

2 Planning context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay provisions and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Planning Policy Framework

The Panel has had regard to the following clauses in the SPPF and LPPF:

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11 Settlement

11.01 Activity centres

11.01‐1 Activity centre network

To build up activity centres as a focus for high‐quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres.

11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne

Planning must consider as relevant:

Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014).

11.04‐2 Housing choice and affordability

To build up activity centres as a focus for high‐quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres.

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

15.01 Urban environment

15.01‐5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood

To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement

21.11 Local areas

This Clause focuses on the local area implementation of the objectives and strategies set out earlier in the Bayside Planning Scheme.

Includes the Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street Activity Centres.


Page 7 of 40

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

Planning provisions relevant to the Amendments are:

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 (Built Form Standards for Sandringham Village Major Activity Centre)

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 (Built Form Standards for Bay Street Major Activity Centre)

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11 (Built Form Standards for Church Street Major Activity Centre).

2.3 Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne identifies Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street activity centres as places of local significance within the Southern Subregion of Melbourne. This region has a population of 1,183,000 million people and is expected to accommodate an additional 400,000‐480,000 people by 2031.

Direction 2.2 seeks to reduce the cost of living by increasing housing supply near services and public transport. This initiative states that activity centres, among other locations, are key areas to accommodate higher‐density housing.

2.4 Structure Plans

The Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street structure plans were finalised in November 2006 to provide a 20‐30 year strategy for each of the centres. The activity centre boundary was generally defined at a 400 metre walking distance from the railway station. Each structure plan is referenced in the Bayside Planning Scheme.

In relation to the structure plans, Council submitted:

…they are relevant policy documents embedded within the Scheme which Council is not only entitled to but required to have regard to and which provide strategic support for the Amendments.

The C100‐C103 Panel report stated:

The exhibited Amendments bear little relationship to the Structure Plans that were finalised in November 2006. Those Structure Plans took a notably conservative approach to development, and sought to use mandatory height controls as the principle means of protecting what Council and many in the community perceived as a low density, low rise ‘village’ character.

2.5 Housing Growth Model Methodology Report, December 2010

The Housing Growth Model Methodology Report was prepared by CPG Australia for Bayside City Council in December 2010. The modelling is to allow testing of different growth scenarios in different parts of the municipality. The report provides an overview of:

Capabilities of the modelling program

The methodology used to calculate capacity

Key assumptions and inputs


Page 8 of 40

Case study examples of modelling outputs.

The modelling adopts the following rates of change as part of its assumptions:

High growth: 0.9%

Moderate growth: 0.5%

Slow growth: 0.2%

These rates were applied to the Bayside Housing Strategy.

2.6 Bayside Housing Strategy, September 2012

The Bayside Housing Strategy, September 2012 references Victoria in Future 2012 projections for an additional 8,689 people and 4,379 dwellings in Bayside between 2011 and 2031.

The strategy identifies Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street activity centres as housing growth areas. A common vision across all centres is to develop each ‘as a secondary focus for future medium and high density residential development within Bayside.’

Each centre has designated ‘Key Focus’ and ‘Moderate’ Residential Growth Areas:

Key Focus: Where the majority of medium and high density residential development will be located

Moderate: Where medium density development will occur.

Based on the outcomes of the modelling, it is anticipated that the three activity centres could accommodate the following levels of growth:

Table 1 Anticipated levels of growth in activity centres

Activity centre Net additional dwellings

Sandringham Village 625

Bay Street 963

Church Street 830

Total 2,418

Modelling of the Bayside Housing Strategy found that 46% more dwellings could be achieved than what was required for the additional population anticipated by the Victoria in Future 2012 projections.

The strategy includes a Residential Strategic Framework Plan and was used to inform the application of the new residential zones across the municipality. The framework plan is included in Clause 21.02‐5 of the Bayside Planning Scheme.


Page 9 of 40

Figure 4 Bayside Residential Framework Plan

Source: Bayside Housing Strategy, Figure 25, p76


Page 10 of 40

2.7 Relevant Planning Scheme Amendments

(i) Bayside Amendments C100, C101 and C102

Amendments C100 (Sandringham Village), C101 (Bay Street) and C102 (Church Street) sought to implement the structure plans for these centres. A Planning Panel heard these matters concurrently and concluded:

The amendments bore little relationship to the associated structure plans

Applying mandatory provisions in each of the centres was at odds with Melbourne 2030 and the Bayside Planning Scheme.

The Panel recommended, among other recommendations, that a new precinct be created in each of the centres to apply ‘preferred’ rather than ‘mandatory’ maximum building heights.

Amendments C100 and C102 were gazetted on 9 May 2013 and Amendment C101 was gazetted on 4 July 2013.

(ii) Bayside Amendment C106

Amendment C106 (New residential zones) made changes associated with the new residential zones. The same changes were proposed by Amendments C113, C114 and C115 and Council has updated parts of the Amendment since exhibition to reflect this. Changes include rezoning land within the Sandringham Village activity centre to GRZ1 and GRZ2 and updating references in DDO8, DDO10 and DDO11.

Amendment C106 was not publicly exhibited or considered by a Planning Panel, and was gazetted on 19 June 2014.

2.8 Planning Practice Notes

The Panel acknowledges that Planning Practice Notes have no statutory weight and are to be relied on in the absence of other suitable advice.

(i) Incorporated and Reference Documents ‐ Planning Practice Note 13 (PPN13)

This Practice Note states:

Reference documents provide background information to assist in understanding the context within which a particular policy or provision has been framed. They are not listed in Clause 81.01 or schedule. Different types of document may perform this role. They may be wide‐ranging in their content and contain information not directly relevant to specific decisions under the planning scheme.

(ii) Strategic Assessment Guidelines ‐ Planning Practice Note 46 (PPN46)

This Practice Note provides a consistent framework for preparing and evaluating a proposed planning scheme amendment and its outcomes.


Page 11 of 40

(iii) Structure Planning for Activity Centres, April 2010 ‐ Planning Practice Note 58 (PPN58)

This Practice Note provides guidance to councils on the activity centre structure planning process. It covers the reasons for structure planning in activity centres, the policy context, and possible inputs and outputs of the process.

(iv) The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes – Planning Practice Note 59 (PPN59)

The Practice Note states:

Planning schemes based on the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) are predominantly performance based. Planning schemes specify the objective that needs to be achieved and provide a degree of freedom on how it is achieved.

…

A performance based planning scheme is able to accommodate variation, innovation, unforeseen uses and development or circumstances peculiar to a particular application to produce results beneficial to the community.

Mandatory provisions in the VPP are the exception. The VPP process is primarily based on the principle that there should be discretion for most developments and that applications are to be tested against objectives and performance outcomes rather than merely prescriptive mandatory requirements.

Nevertheless, there will be circumstances where a mandatory provision will provide certainty and ensure a preferable and efficient outcome.

The Practice Note also provides five ‘tests’ to determine whether mandatory provisions are appropriate:

Is the mandatory provision strategically supported?

Is the mandatory provision appropriate to the majority of proposals?

Does the mandatory provision provide for the preferred outcome?

Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the mandatory provision be clearly unacceptable?

Will the mandatory provision reduce administrative costs?

(v) Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres, April 2010 ‐ Planning Practice Note 60 (PPN60)

This Practice Note provides guidance in relation to the preferred approach to the application of height and setback provisions for activity centres. It states that height and setback provisions must be based on the outcomes of strategic research that includes a built form analysis that is consistent with State policy. The Practice Note confirms that mandatory height and setback provisions will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. If further emphasises:

Even where exceptional circumstances are identified, mandatory height and setback controls should only be applied where they are absolutely necessary to


Page 12 of 40

achieve the built form objectives or outcomes identified from the comprehensive built form analysis.

The Practice Note provides the following examples of exceptional circumstances that may warrant mandatory provisions:

Sensitive coastal environments

where exceeding an identified height limit will unreasonably detract from the significance of the coastal environment

Significant landscape precincts such as natural waterways, regional parks and areas

where dense tree canopies are the dominant feature significant heritage places where other provisions are demonstrated to be inadequate to protect unique heritage values

Sites of recognised State significance

where building heights can be shown to add to the significance of the place, for example views to the Shrine of Remembrance and major waterways

Helicopter and aeroplane flight paths and other aeronautical needs

The Amendments propose to apply mandatory building heights across the entire Sandringham Village, Bay Street (except Precinct E1) and Church Street activity centres. For such circumstances, the Practice Note states that the following strategic work is required:

a Housing Strategy which examines the city’s future housing needs and the role of activity centres (including Neighbourhood Activity Centres) in accommodating these needs

an activity centre/economic strategy which examines the role of the centre as part of a network of centres

an analysis of the capacity and constraints of each centre where planning provisions are proposed

a comprehensive built form analysis of each centre where planning provisions are proposed

identification and analysis of key sites within each centre that can accommodate more intense development when compared with the remainder of the centre.


Page 13 of 40

3 The role of mandatory provisions

3.1 The issue

As outlined in Chapter 2.8, Practice Notes PPN59 and PPN60 provide guidance on assessing whether mandatory provisions are justified and necessary.

The Panel’s Directions 9b and 9c sought to provide a better understanding about:

How mandatory provisions proposed by Amendments C113, C114 and C115 relate to the criteria in PPN59 and PPN60

Circumstances that may have changed since Amendments C100, C101 and C102 were gazetted in May 2013.

The issue is whether the role of mandatory provisions in Victoria has changed in the past three years, as submitted by Council. Whether mandatory maximum heights proposed by the Amendments are justified and necessary in the commercial areas is considered in Chapter 4.

3.2 Evidence and submissions

In supporting its rationale and approach for applying mandatory provisions, Council submitted1 that the Victoria Planning Provisions were intended to be performance based but much has changed since they were introduced.

Council added:

While Council is certainly not inviting the Panel to ignore the Practice Notes even though they seem to be out of touch with the new planning system, Council does say that care should be taken in the weight they should be accorded, particularly given that both Practice Notes are over 3 years old and much has occurred since then in terms of the use of height and setback controls to achieve outcomes.

In its response to Direction 9b, Council believed that PPN59 is ‘severely out of date’ and ‘It has not been reviewed in light of the new residential and commercial zones and in light of Plan Melbourne.’

A number of submissions and experts disagreed with Council’s view. Mr Canavan QC, on behalf of the Knowles Group Pty Ltd, submitted:

The applicable Planning Practice Notes, 59 and 60 are more important now than ever, in light of the clarity and certainty with which Plan Melbourne identifies those areas in which are limited to low rise housing and areas to which high density development is to be directed, such as the Activity Centre. The strategic importance of the activity centres has increased.

The so called ‘paradigm shift’ asserted by Council is not supported by Plan Melbourne or activity centre policy. The Planning Practice Notes apply with

1 Document 1, p52, para 188.


Page 14 of 40

equal, if not greater force to protect growth areas from unreasonable development constraints.

Ms Horsfield of Urbis, an expert in planning called on behalf of Regis Aged Care, also supported relevance of the Practice Notes. She stated in her evidence:

The extent to which mandatory height controls are an appropriate tool to guide future built form outcomes has been subject to significant examination by many planning panels over time …

It is evident from the determinations of these panels, including recent panels considering the use of mandatory provisions in the new residential zones, that the ‘tests’ and ‘criteria’ of Practice Notes 59 and 60 continue to be an important tool in assessing the appropriateness of mandatory height controls.

3.3 Relevant amendments

The following Planning Panels and Advisory Committee examined mandatory provisions:

Boroondara C108 (Neighbourhood Centres and Commercial Corridors)

Melbourne Amendment C171 (Southbank Structure Plan)

Moreland Amendment C123 (Coburg Activity Centre)

Whitehorse Amendment C110 (Tally Ho Activity Centre)

Kingston draft Amendment C140 (new residential zones)

Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee (Stage One Overarching Issues Report).

Key messages contained in the relevant panel reports are:

The Victoria Planning Provisions are performance based

Mandatory provisions should be applied in exceptional circumstances and only where justified and necessary

A mandatory maximum height should not be applied where approved or existing buildings already exceed that height

Preferred maximum heights are not to be exceeded unless the proposal provides an exemplary response to the site, its context, design objectives and other policy in the planning scheme.

3.4 Discussion

As outlined in PPN59, planning schemes, based on the Victoria Planning Provisions, are predominantly performance based. A performance based system relies on a professional assessment against objectives and performance outcomes so that future variation, innovation or unforeseen circumstances can be accommodated.

Centres such as Sandringham Village, Church Street and Bay Street may have clear visions supported by their community, however, it is unlikely that every foreseeable circumstance across the life of their structure plans will be evident at this stage.

There is a role for mandatory provisions in Victoria. As outlined in Chapter 2.8, PPN60 provides examples of exceptional circumstances for mandatory provisions.


Page 15 of 40

An example is Design and Development Overlay Schedule 13 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. Mandatory provisions within this overlay have clear and certain objectives to protect views to and from the Shrine of Remembrance from certain vantage points. This contrasts with applying mandatory provisions in an activity centre where development is encouraged and change is expected.

Any proposal to introduce mandatory provisions into a planning scheme needs to be assessed to determine if they are justified and necessary. Their application is not based on whether they are popular or not.

The Panel agrees that there has been considerable change in planning over the past three years, however, these changes have had little impact on assessing whether mandatory provisions are suitable.

Council referred to Plan Melbourne as an example to support its argument. Plan Melbourne seeks to apply 50% of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone across Melbourne’s metropolitan area. This zone includes default State mandatory provisions. In this instance, a planning authority still needs to:

Strategically justify the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone2

Justify local variations to State mandatory provisions in the schedule.

The Victoria Planning Provisions have seen mandatory and discretionary planning provisions added and removed since the late 1990s. Although Council argued that there has been a recent transition towards mandatory provisions, during the same three year period there was also an increase in discretionary provisions. Examples include:

Removing mandatory conditions from certain land uses in zones

Removing the mandatory requirement for a section 173 agreement (for subdivisions) in the Farming Zone

Allowing land uses that were previously prohibited in certain zones to be considered at the discretion of a responsible authority.

When taking into account the scale of the Victoria Planning Provisions, changes towards and against mandatory provisions have been negligible and the Victoria Planning Provisions continue to be performance based.

The Panel therefore does not accept that there is a ‘new planning system’ that has shifted towards mandatory provisions and does not agree that practice notes PPN59 and PPN60 are out of date. These practice notes continue to provide criteria to help assess the suitability of mandatory provisions in the absence of other suitable and more superior advice.

3.5 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that:

The Victoria Planning Provisions continue to be performance based

Mandatory provisions should be applied in exceptional circumstances and only where justified and necessary

2 Ministerial Direction No 11 ‐ Strategic Assessment of Amendments


Page 16 of 40

PPN59 and PPN60 are current and relevant for assessing whether mandatory provisions should be applied

Preferred maximum heights are not to be exceeded unless the proposal provides an exemplary response to the site, its context, design objectives and other policy in the planning scheme.

The Panel has therefore relied upon these Practice Notes to form its view as to whether the mandatory provisions proposed by Amendments C113, C114 and C115 are justified and appropriate.


Page 17 of 40

4 Mandatory maximum building heights in the commercial areas

This chapter addresses the proposed implementation of mandatory maximum building heights within the commercial areas of the three activity centres under these Amendments.

4.1 The issue

The issue is whether there is strategic justification to apply further mandatory maximum building heights in precincts within the Sandringham Village, Bay Street and Church Street Activity Centres.

The Minister's authorisation of the Amendments required that they only include proposed changes that had not been considered as part of Amendments C100, C101 and C102 (with the exception of the height provisions proposed for the residential land bounded by Trentham Street and Sandringham, Fernhill and Bay roads). The change proposed by the Amendments introduces mandatory height provisions in the commercial areas of these activity centres.

At the Directions Hearing the Panel directed Council to provide:

an outline of circumstances it considers to have changed since Amendments C100, C101 and C102 were gazetted that have led to the preparation of Amendments C113, C114 and C115; and

its assessment of the mandatory maximum building heights proposed for each centre against Practice Note 59: The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes and Practice Note 60: Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres.


In response to the Panel's directions, Council submitted that, since Amendments C100, C101 and C102, there have been key strategic changes that support its case for mandatory maximum heights in the commercial areas.

The submissions are considered under the following headings:

Bayside Housing Strategy and Housing Growth Model

Plan Melbourne

Changes to the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

New Zones

Practice Note 59: The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes

Practice Note 60: Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres

Other Submissions.

(i) Bayside Housing Strategy and Housing Growth Model

Council submitted that its final Bayside Housing Strategy, adopted by Council in September 2012 and included as a reference document by Amendment C134 in August 2014, provides ‘robust and conservative advice’ on the capacity of activity centres to accommodate housing


Page 18 of 40

growth. The C100‐1033 Panel ‘did not have access to this planning tool and only had access to rudimentary estimates of housing yield’.

Council submitted that the Bayside Housing Strategy ‘identifies a clear hierarchy of preferred locations for medium and high density residential development (referred to as 'Housing Growth Areas')’. It explained:

Within the Housing Growth Areas, the Housing Strategy goes further to designate areas as:

Key Focus Residential Growth Areas (which include the commercial areas of the Bayside MACS), which are areas where the majority of medium and higher density residential development will be located. These areas have a high level of access to public transport and existing commercial and community services and should provide a diverse range of housing types.

Moderate Residential Growth Areas (which include the surrounding residential component of the Bayside MACS) ...

According to the Bayside Housing Strategy:

The main focus for future medium and high density residential development will be the Southland Principal Activity Centre and the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre which provide the greatest access to shops, public transport and other services, with minimal constraints.

The other identified Major Activity Centres, Church Street, Brighton; Bay Street, Brighton; Hampton Street, Hampton; Sandringham Village; Cheltenham and Elsternwick will play a secondary role in accommodating future medium and high density residential development, ensuring the ‘village’ feel of each centre is maintained and enhanced.

These growth areas are illustrated in Clause 21.02‐5 of the planning scheme, Map 2 – Residential Strategic Framework Plan (drawn from the Bayside Housing Strategy). Refer to Chapter 2.6 of this report.

In its response to the Panel's directions, Council provided the City of Bayside Housing Growth Modelling Methodology Report prepared by CPG Australia in 2010. In relation to this, Council submitted:

By the application of the Housing Growth Model and based on conservative assumptions of likely yield (40% within the period to 2030 and only a moderate site coverage of 60%) it was found that the recommendations of the Housing Strategy would not only meet Bayside's forecast housing requirements (based on VIF2012 figures available at the time of the Housing Strategy), but would significantly exceed them.

It further submitted that it had updated the model to reflect the recently introduced zones and height provisions, DTPLI data for completed redevelopment and yield estimates for

3 The Panel also considered Amendment C103 for the Hampton Street Centre.


Page 19 of 40

development opportunity sites. The updated model, it said, shows that under current policy settings and with development not exceeding the proposed mandatory heights in activity centres, Bayside would yield 48,897 dwellings by 2030 or 5,094 more than the Victoria in Future 2014 projections.

Council submitted that it had tested eight development scenarios using different sets of assumptions. Four of these assumed that 40% of lots were developed and four assumed 60% were developed by the year 2030. Two scenarios assumed development to the proposed DDO maximum heights and the other scenarios assumed development to numbers of storeys above the proposed maxima. Council submitted that this analysis reveals ‘relatively minor increases in dwelling yield’ would result from increased heights above the proposed DDO maximum heights.

It submitted that, assuming 40% of lots are developed and development in the three activity centres was approximately two storeys above the proposed mandatory heights, the estimated dwelling capacity would result in 136 more dwellings, compared to an additional 11,274 dwellings across the municipality. If heights were double those proposed by the mandatory provisions, the model predicted an additional 229 dwellings. If 60% of lots were developed then these increases would be 203 and 472 dwellings respectively, compared to a municipal yield of 12,286 dwellings with the proposed mandatory heights.

On the basis of this, Council submitted that ‘the impact on dwelling yield of the amendments would be relatively minor if not insignificant’ and that ‘the completion of the Housing Growth Model provided Council with the ability to determine with a relatively high level of accuracy, the impact of built form controls on housing yield’. Further, the Housing Growth Model ‘enables the panel to be confident that the strategy will not lead to a reduced ability to provide for the housing needs of the municipality ‐ by a big margin’.

To supplement the Housing Growth Model and to ‘give some perception of the cumulative impact of built form’ Council submitted a report prepared by SJB Urban entitled Built Form Testing Analysis, November 2014.4

Using computer modelling to produce un‐rendered building envelopes, four scenarios for each centre were presented:

Outcome 1: 40% redevelopment with building heights and setbacks consistent with the current DDOs.

Outcome 1A: 60% redevelopment with building heights and setbacks as per the current DDOs.

Outcome 2: 40% redevelopment with building heights two storeys above the current discretionary height limits. All setbacks are maintained at current DDO setbacks.

Outcome 3: 60% redevelopment with building heights +3 storeys in Precinct C, +4 storeys in Precinct B and +5 storeys in Precinct A above discretionary heights. All setbacks are maintained at current DDO setbacks.

4 Document 3.


Page 20 of 40

The modelled building envelopes were compared with matching photographs of existing conditions at various points in the centres. The first two scenarios represent fixing the maximum heights as proposed by Council.

Figure 5 Figures in SJB Urban report for modelled development envelopes on Bay Street (labels added)

Council submitted that, under the first scenario (Outcome 1):

... the cumulative impact of the scale of development does not seem such as to offend or depart from the vision and the strategy for the centres which is of a village type low scale/low rise development. What is more, even with this level of development, there is a clear fulfilment of the role of the activity centre in the provision of not only commercial facilities but also housing. The testing of this extent of change by the Housing Growth Model gives a high level of confidence that a desire to have a built form outcome of a certain degree sits comfortably with the policy imperative of providing for a diverse range of housing opportunities in these types of centres.

Council also found the second scenario (1A) ‘still does not seem to impact on the low rise policy objectives for these centres’ but the third (2) ‘challenges the strategic vision for the centre with buildings envelopes appearing potentially bulky and overwhelming the street’ while the last (3) ‘would simply result in the destruction of the three activity centres as we know them’.


Page 21 of 40

(ii) Plan Melbourne

Council identified the introduction of the strategy Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Planning Strategy (Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014) as a strategic change since Amendments C100 ‐ C102. Clause 9 of the planning scheme was amended by Amendment VC106 on 30 May 2014 and requires planning and responsible authorities to consider and apply Plan Melbourne and disregard references to Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne @ 5 million. Under Plan Melbourne all former ‘principal’ and ‘major’ activity centres are now to be referred to as ‘activity centres’. Council submitted that these centres ‘are now down the list as it were under Plan Melbourne and do not have the same strategic purpose as the new and wider list of what are called Metropolitan Activity Centres’.

Council emphasised the role of local government in planning activity centres, citing initiative 1.5.3 of Plan Melbourne:

Principal, major and specialised activity centres that are not designated as either national employment clusters metropolitan activity centres or transport gateways will now be designated as activity centres or health / education precincts. Local governments are responsible for the planning and management of activity centres. The continued growth and development of activity centres will provide communities with convenient access to a wide range of goods and services, and their growth will facilitate vibrant local economies across local neighbourhoods [Council emphasis].

(iii) Changes to State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Council submitted that Amendment VC106 removed former Clause 11.04‐2 which dealt with planning for an activity centre hierarchy, the provisions of which were ‘pivotal in informing the C100 ‐ C104 Panel ... of the expectations of major activity centres especially those under consideration’. Now, Council submitted, the SPPF ‘is virtually silent on the roles that the various centres should take’. Furthermore, it said:

... the only policy guidance for the new category of ‘activity centre’ is to be found at Table 1 of Plan Melbourne. It provides the following in relation to the strategic direction for these centres:

Enable 20‐minute neighbourhoods by providing access to a wide range of goods and services in centres that are planned and coordinated by local governments. The centres will provide employment and vibrant local economies. Some will serve larger subregional catchments. Through the removal of retail floorspace and office caps, activity centres may grow unrestricted.

(iv) New Zones

Since Amendments C100‐C102 new residential and commercial zones have been introduced and, Council submitted, most of the municipality now has planning provisions that provide for mandatory building heights through either the General Residential Zone (GRZ) or the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) which represents ‘a significant shift from the planning framework that existed at the time of the C100 ‐ C103 panel’. Council submitted:


Page 22 of 40

What is before the Panel today are three Amendments where the Council has heard its community and taken action accordingly. While these proposals may be difficult for the planning community to accept because of its philosophical objection to mandatory provisions, it can be seen that recent reforms to the residential planning zones have not been too fussed about philosophical positions and simply introduced clear cut planning provisions. Those changes have been made signalling a significant paradigm shift in the direction of planning in established urban areas.

(v) Planning Practice Note 59 ‐ The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes

Council submitted that the practice note, dated September 2010, ‘is severely out of date’ and ‘has not been reviewed in light of the new residential and commercial zones and in light of Plan Melbourne’. Contrary to the statement in PPN59 that mandatory provisions are ‘the exception’ in the VPP, Council submitted that they are now the norm in zones and ‘apply across most of Bayside's residential and commercial areas’.

Council argued that the Structure Plans5 prepared for each centre which are reference documents, together with the background research, provide strategic support for the proposed planning provisions, in accordance with PPN59. In each of these plans the future character of the centres' two storey shopfronts is to remain with modern three storey buildings matching their height.

Council submitted that in the preparation of the Sandringham Village Structure Plan some of the highly valued attributes of the centre identified by respondents included the:

village atmosphere; friendliness and community feel;

dwelling mix, the mix of services, and the proximity of Port Phillip;

mix of retail and its local function in contrast to bigger centres;

cafes and restaurants; and

ease of access and convenience of the centre, in particular pedestrian access and public transport.

It submitted that these sentiments ‘endure today’ in the submissions to Amendment C113.

Highly valued attributes identified by respondents in the preparation of the Bay Street Centre Structure Plan and the Church Street Centre Structure Plan were the same for each centre and included the:

low scale character and the village ambience of the centre, along with the quality and variety of the shops and businesses;

convenience of the centre as a local facility, its friendliness and the easy access to restaurants and cafes;

shopping and restaurants and the cinema being key attractors for the centre; and

the quality of the streetscape and gardens.

5 Sandringham Village Final Structure Plan (November 2006); Bay Street Centre Final Structure Plan

(November 2006); and Church Street Centre Final Structure Plan (November 2006).


Page 23 of 40

Council noted its support for the height provisions in the DDO schedules and it considered that the 2012 amendment process determined that the DDO heights are the ‘right’ heights.

Council also submitted that the Housing Growth Model ‘provides further unequivocal strategic support and grounding to the Structure Plans and particularly the proposition that additional height which goes beyond what was contemplated by the Structure Plan is simply not required’. It cited the Bayside Height Control Study (March 2000) which noted that commercial areas in Bayside have a ‘strong village feel’ which ‘limits the height of buildings and the intensity of development that is appropriate’. However, Council acknowledged that this study recommended discretionary heights for areas away from the foreshore.

Council also cited references in the MSS as providing strategic support. In particular it noted that Clause 21.02 says:

Development of Bayside has historically centred around defined ‘villages’ or activity centres which are a focus for retail, entertainment, employment and are accessible by public transport. This development pattern continues today. Each of these ‘villages’ has a defined character which is highly regarded by the local community.

It referred to Clause 21.06‐1.2 Activity Centres which has the objective ‘to achieve high quality built form and public realm design that conserves and enhances valued urban character and heritage places’, and related strategies including:

Ensure new development is compatible with the vision for the centre and avoids materially altering the scale of the centre.

Maintain and enhance the traditional, fine grain streetscape rhythm and building scale of activity centres.

Council submitted that the proposed mandatory maximum heights will implement these policies. It further noted that they will assist in maintaining a ‘point of difference’ between the subject centres and their large competitors such as Chadstone and Southland, by protecting their form and scale and village atmosphere, thus providing alternative retail environments sought by the public.

In Council's view:

The mandatory measures clearly implement the Vision and the purpose of planning for each of the three activity centres. Without the mandatory measures, the valued aspects of the activity centres are likely to be eroded over time, as a result of the cumulative impact of developmental change ...

In response to the criterion in PPN59 that a mandatory provision be appropriate to the majority of proposals, Council submitted that there would only be a few sites where a taller height could be acceptable and, if so, these could be dealt with by planning scheme amendments.

In response to the criterion that a mandatory provision resolve divergent opinions within the community as to a preferred outcome when a consistent outcome is necessary, Council referred to the preferred character statement in the MSS and submitted that continued debate about height ‘is non‐productive, divisive and costly’.


Page 24 of 40

A criterion in PPN59 is to consider "real evidence of development exceeding the proposed control". In accordance with the Ministerial Authorisation, Council exhibited information regarding those sites within the centres with buildings already constructed or permitted that exceed the proposed maximum heights on land affected by the Amendments.

Prior to the Hearing, Council provided updated information that identified 38 current or recently approved permit applications in the three centres of which 47% (18) exceed the proposed mandatory height of the relevant DDO precinct. It submitted that ‘mandatory provisions would avoid the risk of the parameters being pushed even further and altering the highly valued built form nature of these centres’.

In response to the Practice Note criterion of whether the majority of proposals not in accordance with the mandatory provision would be clearly unacceptable, Council submitted:

One or 2 buildings in a centre which are one or 2 storeys over a preferred height will not significantly change the urban fabric of an activity centre. Rather, it is the cumulative impact over time of buildings which push the boundaries and feed off each other citing each push through the preferred height limit as a precedent, which ultimately brings the whole purpose of the control undone.

In respect to the further Practice Note criterion of reducing administrative costs, Council referred to the expense of planning appeals about non‐compliance with preferred heights. It submitted that height is a constant source of dispute in planning and, as a result, community pressure has been such that all residential areas and some commercial areas now have mandatory provisions.

It expressed a lack of confidence in the use of preferred heights which it believes have ‘little longevity in the face of constant challenge’. In Council's view ‘one breach and the whole dam wall collapses’. Thus ‘the character of centres will change if the issue of building height is not kept firmly under control’.

(vi) Practice Note 60 ‐ Height and Setback Controls for Activity Centres (April 2010)

Council submitted that PPN60 is also out‐dated and ‘speaks to a prior policy setting ... no longer in existence in the VPPs’. In response to the statement in PPN60 that mandatory height and setback controls will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, Council noted that each of the activity centres is within a few hundred metres of the coastline and that each is affected by Heritage Overlays, particularly the Bay Street centre.

In relation to heritage buildings Council submitted that the character imbued into a centre by them is ‘clearly a particularly important feature of the centres’ and is one element of ‘village’ character, the term used in the Structure Plans to describe the feel of the centres to be preserved.

Flowing on from this, the existing heritage buildings formed the foundation for many of the built form controls. A clear example of this is the setback requirements of the DDOs, which require that where a site in a commercial precinct abuts a heritage building within a Heritage Overlay, it must be set back to provide a transition in the front or side setbacks.


Page 25 of 40

Council submitted that:

... the introduction of mandatory controls for these three centres having the attributes and local role that they have is consistent with the State government's increased acceptance and use of mandatory controls since the Practice Notes were released in 2010. What is clear is that mandatory controls in the context of activity centres have been used in small centres and large centres. It is submitted that the question is not whether there are exceptional circumstances, but rather whether the circumstances and particular attributes of the centre merit the use of mandatory controls. ... (In this case) only heights are proposed to be mandatory. All setbacks would remain as discretionary.

(vii) Other submissions

Council summarised the written submissions regarding building heights as follows:

The change to mandatory heights was supported by the majority of submitters. In Sandringham Village, of a total of 121 submissions, 111 submissions supported the mandatory height controls (51 of that 111 supported the controls subject to changes). In Bay Street, of a total of 22 submissions, 17 submissions supported the mandatory height controls (6 of that 17 supported the controls subject to changes). In Church Street, of a total of 21 submissions, 16 submissions supported the mandatory height controls (8 of that 16 supported the controls subject to changes). While planning is not a voting exercise, the weight of community opinion ought be taken into account as a relevant consideration.

Out of a total of 164 submissions across the three centres, only 16 submissions opposed the application of mandatory height controls. That is less than 10% of the total submissions received.

Council noted that a number of submitters sought changes to the precinct boundaries or changes to the heights within precincts. Mr Kelly made submissions about the adequacy of access and services to lots at 30 to 36 Bay Road, Sandringham to facilitate development allowed by the planning scheme and he too suggested that preferred heights be reduced. These submissions fall outside the scope of the Amendments.

Mr Canavan made submissions on behalf of the Knowles Group Pty Ltd, the predominant owner and manager of the Dendy Plaza Shopping Centre at 26 Church Street, 8 St Andrews Street and 1‐3 Well Street, Brighton. He submitted in summary that the following propositions should guide consideration of Amendment C115 and that it should be abandoned:

Strategic planning for Activity Centres (particularly activity centres adjacent to a railway station) should not seek to constrain development potential on the basis the Council will meet its VIF housing targets. Competent strategic planning calls for the development potential of activity centres to be optimised subject to reasonable development constraints. A municipality which meets its VIF housing target is not released from its planning obligation to support the reasonable development potential of its activity centres;


Page 26 of 40

It is not open to the Panel to find that the Bayside Housing Strategy (2012) (the Housing Strategy) strategically justifies the proposed mandatory controls. Housing strategies are a tool that may demonstrate that a proposal will not unreasonably constrain housing capacity as a threshold issue. The Housing Strategy is not intended to establish an optimum level of development nor a need for mandatory controls;

Plan Melbourne and the zone reforms strengthen the role of activity centres in accommodating residential density and provide greater impetus to ensure that areas earmarked for growth reach their reasonable development potential;

The Activity Centre was formerly designated as a MAC in the Scheme and will continue to perform a role and function commensurate with this designation. It has an important role to play in contributing to urban consolidation and as a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilities;

The heights contained in the Church Street Structure Plan (2006) (the Structure Plan) are outdated. The 2012 Panel regarded these heights as far from satisfactory and in need of a comprehensive review. In light of these findings, the Council's position in now seeking to make those heights mandatory is indefensible.

In relation to Council's reliance on the Bayside Housing Strategy, updated Housing Growth Model, Plan Melbourne and recent zone reforms as circumstances that have changed since Amendments C100‐102 were gazetted, Mr Canavan submitted:

Council relied upon the housing strategy and the Housing Growth Model at the 2012 Panel hearing. The Council sought authorisation to exhibit Amendment C115 on 3 August 2012, some three months after the 2012 Panel hearing and one month after the panel report was released. At that time Plan Melbourne, the amendments to Clause 11 of the Scheme and the recent zone reforms were not in existence or had not occurred.

Mr Canavan submitted:

the Draft Bayside Housing Strategy considered by the 2012 Panel is identical to the present Bayside Housing Strategy

the Housing Growth Model Methodology Report dated 2010 was available to Council to produce at the 2012 Panel hearing

the Built Form Testing Analysis prepared for this hearing ‘does nothing more than express the proposed height controls in pictorial form’.

In relation to the Bayside Housing Strategy he submitted:

Ultimately, a housing strategy may inform the decision maker about the impacts of a proposal in terms of meeting housing needs (consistent with the DTPLI submission to Amendment C125) but they should not be the sole or primary driver of a planning scheme amendment. They do not provide strategic


Page 27 of 40

justification for the application of mandatory height controls or for constraining reasonable development potential in activity centres.

Mr Canavan submitted that the Structure Plan should be afforded little weight being:

... an outdated piece of work that was undertaken by the Council some 12 years ago. It is in need of a comprehensive review consistent with the findings of the 2012 Panel. Planning Practice Note 58: Structure Planning for Activity Centres, April 2010 encourages the review of activity centre Structure Plans every four years to coincide with MSS reviews ...

He also noted that the Structure Plan is a reference document which, in accordance with Planning Practice Note 13, Incorporated and Reference Documents, October 2013, provides background information and has only a limited role in decision‐making.

In his planning evidence for the Knowles Group, Mr Biacsi said that he was ‘unable to identify the strategic basis for the Amendment or the circumstances that have led to its preparation since the gazettal of Amendment C102 in May, 2013’ and that the proposed mandatory maximum height ‘is unnecessarily prescriptive, unwarranted and without any strategic policy basis’. In terms of PPN60, he could find no ‘exceptional circumstances’ that would justify mandatory height provisions for the commercial precincts of the Church Street activity centre.

Mr Biacsi said that he ‘would have expected that the Council would have undertaken a rigorous review of the 2006 Structure Plan before entertaining any further amendment to the provisions of the BPS particularly in relation to building heights in its MACs’.

Mr Wilson made submissions on behalf of the owner of 206‐208 New Street. This is land in the Commercial 1 Zone in the Church Street activity centre. His submission was that the Amendment should be abandoned or alternatively that the land bounded by New Street, Church Street and St Andrews Street be considered as a separate planning entity with provisions ‘to facilitate development that is higher and inclusive of different uses than proposed under Amendment C115’. He submitted that this area is sufficiently large to allow for more intense development and there are several sites ripe for redevelopment. As an architect for 206‐208 New Street, he had prepared an application for six storeys on the site that he believed showed development can be designed to avoid adverse impacts on neighbouring residential and heritage sites. The matter is currently before VCAT.

Mr Indomenico of Tract Consultants Pty Ltd made submissions on behalf of Coda Property Group, purchasers of a former bus depot abutting the Sandringham railway station. He submitted that the land, having an area of about 3,320 square metres and within the Public Use Zone ‐ Transport, ‘is located within the core of the Sandringham Village Major Activity Centre and presents an obvious opportunity for more intensive development’. He submitted that PPN59 and PPN60 are relevant and must be taken into consideration, that the Amendment fails to recognise activity centre planning initiative in Plan Melbourne and that the Amendment is not strategically supported.

VicTrack made submissions in relation to Sandringham Station which it views as a candidate for the Station Precinct Enhancement Program. Under this program, land surplus to its requirements is proposed to be released for urban renewal projects. It submitted that Plan


Page 28 of 40

Melbourne seeks to deliver ‘a pipeline of transit‐oriented development’ for which land at Sandringham Station would be appropriate. It submitted that the station precinct should be excluded from mandatory height provisions as it represents an opportunity for development up to five storeys.

4.3 Discussion

As outlined in Chapter 3, while it is true that a revised metropolitan planning strategy has been adopted for Melbourne and the classification of activity centres has changed, the Panel does not accept that the fundamentals of planning for activity centres have changed significantly. Achieving the Plan Melbourne vision of a city of ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’ will depend in great measure upon the availability to residents of public transport so centres with railway stations, like these three activity centres, will remain important places for the development for commerce and housing.

Council's move to cap the height of buildings in the activity centre commercial areas runs counter to the removal of caps on retail and office floor space so that ‘activity centres may grow unrestricted’ as intended by Plan Melbourne.

Loosening of restrictions on activity centres has been implemented with the introduction in July 2013 of the new commercial zones. The Commercial 1 Zone applicable to these centres allows for a wider range of accommodation uses than the former zones and provides for expansion opportunities for retail, office and commercial businesses by removing retail and office floor space restrictions.

The new residential zones have introduced greater restrictions on residential development throughout significant areas of Melbourne, placing more emphasis on activity centres as locations for higher density apartment development. The extensive use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 in Bayside allowing for ‘minimal residential growth’ and the application, within the boundaries of these activity centres, of the General Residential Zone allowing for ‘moderate residential growth,’ reinforces the importance of the activity centre commercial areas for more intensive residential development.

The Panel does not consider that adoption of the Housing Strategy justifies mandatory heights in the commercial areas. The explanatory statement to Bayside Amendment C106 which, in June 2014 implemented the reformed residential zones in Bayside based on the recommendations of the Bayside Housing Strategy, said the strategy:

... concentrates residential development around integrated and sustainable transport systems, as a way to provide the community with access to social and economic opportunities, facilitate economic prosperity and will contribute to environmental sustainability. This approach will encourage residents to reduce their reliance on cars. The Strategy has identified that medium to high density residential development should be located around Activity Centres.

The Panel notes the Housing Strategy's designation of the commercial areas of the three activity centres as ‘Key Focus Residential Growth Areas’ for medium and high density housing. While they will be secondary in their role to Southland and Moorabbin according to the strategy, they will nevertheless be significant development areas. The strategy states that in all three centres housing ‘above the shops and offices will feature strongly throughout


Page 29 of 40

the centre to provide residents with convenient access to services and amenities.’ In the Panel's view these sentiments weigh against the proposition that heights of buildings in the commercial areas should be rigidly capped.

While the Bayside Housing Strategy also states that building heights ‘will be defined through the existing structure plan’ in all three centres, it also says that the structure plans ‘should be reviewed as a high priority’. In its implementation plan the Bayside Housing Strategy lists the priority of the review of the structure plans as ‘critical’.

In its submission, Council acknowledged that the C100 ‐ C103 Panel was ‘somewhat critical of the Structure Plans’ and said that the exhibited Amendments ‘bear little relationship to the Structure Plans that were finalised in November 2006’. This Panel agrees that the 2006 structure plans are outdated and require review. Accordingly, they should not be relied upon to justify fixing mandatory maximum heights at these centres.

The Panel accepts that the updated Housing Growth Model prepared for Council shows that the possible future population predicted in Victoria in Future 2014 for Bayside can be met if current demographic, economic, social and development trends continue. However, the Panel does not agree that the Housing Growth Model provides ‘unequivocal strategic support’ for the proposition that building heights greater than in the current activity centre structure plans are ‘unnecessary’ and may therefore be capped. The Panel considers that strategic planning for the centres must take into account broader factors than the achievement of population targets including, for example, the importance of the activity centres to the metropolis for transit‐orientated development opportunities.

While the Housing Growth Model is useful in allowing the testing of theoretical development scenarios, the value of this, in the absence of thorough strategic reviews of the structures and built form potentials of the three centres is questionable.

Council's continued reliance on structure plans that it adopted in 2006 contrasts with its criticism of the relevance of Practice Notes PPN59 and PPN60 issued in 2010. While the Panel can agree that some of aspects of these documents have been overtaken by recent changes to the planning system, they nevertheless remain in place and the relevant criteria within them should still be taken in to account. In particular both Practice Notes refer to a proposed measure having a sound strategic basis. PPN60 suggests that height and setback provisions can be appropriate if ‘they are not aimed at restricting the built form, but at facilitating good design outcomes.’ In this case it is difficult to see how simply adding a fixed cap to building heights will facilitate good design.

PPN60 says that proposed height provisions must be selected through a comprehensive built form analysis. The only new material submitted in support of this is the Built Form Testing Analysis prepared by SJB Urban submitted by Council at the Hearing. Council acknowledged that this material contains images of building envelopes that ‘have not been rendered due to time constraints’.

The SJB report was not circulated before the Hearing and its authors were not present for other parties to cross‐examine. Accordingly the Panel gives it minimal weight. Having said that, the Panel comments that is unable to draw from the report the same conclusions as Council, that is, that Outcome 1 with fixed maximum heights ‘does not seem to offend’ the


Page 30 of 40

‘village type low scale/low rise development’ strategy for the centres whereas Outcome 3 would destroy the centres ‘as we know them’. In the Panel’s view, the simplistic building envelopes leave too much to the imagination to draw such conclusions about the centres. While this analysis might provide a valuable input into a thorough review of the structure and built form of the centres, it is of little use in drawing firm conclusions about the need to fix maximum heights for the three centres.

Council cites a public desire for centres with ‘a village feel’ as evidenced in various submissions to these Amendments and reported in the Bayside Housing Strategy and the Structure Plan reports. This is largely identified with two to three storey buildings on street frontages. In the Panel's view, while understandable, this is a simplistic view which does not allow for the possibility of design for greater building heights while maintaining an active, interesting streetscape and minimising loss of light to the street.

In its submission, Council noted that heritage buildings are an important feature of the centres and an element of ‘village’ character. The Panel agrees with this and notes that Heritage Overlay already provides a constraint on development to one degree or another at each centre and impacts on heritage must be taken into account at any affected site. The existence of heritage provisions does not justify the imposition of additional provisions for fixed heights on these sites or others nearby.

Another justification advanced for the proposed mandatory heights is that it will avoid planning appeals and the cost of ‘arguing about non‐compliance with preferred heights’. It is not possible for this Panel to say from the submissions and evidence (or lack of it) whether or not this ‘non‐compliance’ is justifiable. In the Panel's view, if Council believes that the current DDO provisions are leading to undesirable outcomes then it should look into the efficacy of those provisions as part of its proposed ‘high priority’ review of the structure plans.

The Panel has inspected the three commercial areas and the existing development that does not comply with the proposed mandatory maximum heights. In the Panel's opinion while there is some older development in the centres that contributes little or nothing to the aesthetics of the centres, the ‘village character’ of the centres is not compromised by the newer buildings that exceed the proposed height provision.

In relation to the various submissions that sought changes to precinct boundaries and heights, these matters are outside the scope of these amendments which seek only to replace preferred maximum heights with mandatory maxima.

4.4 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that insufficient strategic bases have been established for the proposed imposition of mandatory maximum heights in the Commercial zones of these three activity centres.


Page 31 of 40

5 Sandringham Village precinct realignment

5.1 Background

Precinct E2 is comprised of larger scale properties with a medical centre, church, memorial hall, aged care facilities, girl guides hall, public open space and low to higher density dwellings. To the east of Precinct E2 is a school and church that separate it from other parts of Precinct E. Precinct E2 is zoned GRZ1 with no mandatory height. This contrasts with Precinct E which is zoned GRZ2 with a mandatory height of 11 metres for dwelling or residential buildings.

Table 2 provides an outline of proposed changes since Amendment C100 was prepared. It shows how Precinct E2 (originally recommended as Precinct E1) was created to recognise a limited number of properties that had existing or approved development exceeding 11 metres (three storeys).

Table 2 Revised proposals for Sandringham Village since Amendment C100

Milestone What was proposed? Provisions

Amendment C100 proposal

Precinct E to apply to all areas in the Sandringham Village Activity Centre other than the commercial core

Mandatory maximum building height: 3 storeys

C100 Panel recommendation

A new Precinct E1 be created to:

…legitimise existing and approved development that is higher than three storeys, and provide scope for higher development to be considered on sites that have the potential to accommodate such development.6

Preferred maximum building height: 3 storeys

Council adopted position (17 September 2012 meeting)

Council rejected the Panel’s recommendation to create a new precinct and sought to have this area remain in Precinct E

Mandatory maximum building height:3 storeys

Council revised adoption (25 September 2012 meeting)

Council adopted the C100 Panel recommendation with modifications

Preferred maximum building height: 3 storeys

Mandatory maximum building height:5 storeys

Amendment C113 proposal

Council reverted back to the Amendment C100 proposal

Mandatory maximum building height: 3 storeys

6 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C100, C101, C102 and C103 Panel Report, p28.


Page 32 of 40

5.2 The issue

The issue is whether since Amendment C100, relevant new circumstances have arisen to support:

Deleting the Precinct E2 provisions in DDO8, and

Applying Precinct E provisions by consolidating the area within the Precinct E boundary.


A number of submissions supported Precinct E2 being deleted so that the provisions of Precinct E can apply to the area. In support of applying Precinct E provisions to precinct E2, Council submitted:

Council does not agree that the development of built form up to 5 storeys is appropriate for this activity centre in this essentially residential precinct. The designation of precinct E1 as a separate precinct was as a result of a panel recommendation not any strategic planning.

Mr Piddington submitted that the maximum five storey height is too high because:

the precinct is elevated and prominent;

it contains residential properties in the north, west and south;

it faces residential properties to the north, west and south;

there is no protection of amenity for these directly affected properties; and

5 storeys is out of place in this part of Sandringham being so far from the centre of the MAC.

Mr Piddington’s issues were raised in several other submissions. Other issues submitted in support of applying the Precinct E mandatory three storey maximum height include:

Five storey buildings are not in keeping with the one to two storey height in Bayside

High rise enclaves will create cities within a city

Increased traffic will add to existing traffic and parking problems

Adverse impact on existing infrastructure.

To address concerns related to the impact of developments such as the Mercy aged care facility, Dr Best submitted (Document 9):

What we need as residents are tighter and clearer conditions that cannot be subverted and that respect neighbourhood character and residential amenity. What we also need is certainty about our homes, rather than finding ourselves forced into a vulnerable position without the protection of any planning controls.

There were also a number of submissions that opposed the deletion of Precinct E2 and its associated provisions. A local resident (Submission 96) believed that five storeys would be good for the areas surrounding the shops and station because the additional people ‘would create atmosphere and vibrancy’.

Mr Finlayson of Ratio, on behalf of Autumn Care Properties, submitted:

The precinct continues to have significant development potential due to its proximity within the MAC, its large allotments, its relative isolation from sensitive


Page 33 of 40

residential interfaces and an existing built form character that already comprises a 4 storey development (18‐22 Fernhill Road) and existing 2 and 3 storey walk up flat developments.

There have been no change of circumstances in terms of development potential that would require the Panel to depart from its earlier findings.

Regis Aged Care, also objecting to deleting Precinct E2 provisions, submitted:

Mandatory maximum heights will have a negative impact on future development

There is no strategic justification for mandatory maximum heights

The existing discretionary provisions provide a better opportunity for appropriate site responsive design.

5.4 Discussion

The Panel has taken into account the submissions that supported Precinct E2 being consolidated into Precinct E with a three storey mandatory maximum building height.

Council no longer supports it mandatory five storey building height for Precinct E2 in DDO8. Instead Council is seeking to revisit what it originally proposed in Amendment C100 and considered by the previous panel. The C100 panel recommended a preferred maximum height of 11 metres (three storeys) to recognise existing and approved development that exceeds this height within Precinct E2.

The Panel considered issues related to the impacts of the Mercy aged care facility and amenity issues before considering whether Precinct E2 should be deleted.

(i) Mercy aged care facility ‐ case study

The Panel used the new Mercy aged care facility in Fernhill Road as case study to better understand the impact of deleting or retaining the Precinct E2 provisions. Council and other submitters including Dr Best and Mr Piddington referred to the Mercy aged care development to support their submission.

Many of the submitters’ criticisms about the Mercy aged care development design response appeared to be focussed on built form issues including bulk, window orientation and height. It is not clear whether height was an issue because other design concerns or whether height itself was the primary concern. As shown in Figure 6, however, provided by Dr Best, an 11 metre (three storeys) development would not have necessarily resolved all of Dr Best’s concerns. A blunt tool such as a mandatory maximum building height is therefore unlikely to achieve the preferred design outcomes.

An important design outcome that determines whether a centre has a ‘low scale village feel’ is how a building presents itself to the street. During its area inspection, the Panel inspected the presentation of the aged care facility to the street. From that perspective, the Panel believes that the Mercy aged care facility presents itself as a three storey low scale development. Amenity related issues are discussed in the next section of this chapter.


Page 34 of 40

Figure 6 Mercy aged care facility ‐ Comparison of five and three storey built form

Mercy aged care ‐ existing five storey form

Issues identified by Dr Best:

A: Clear glass on balcony

B: Top level

C: No privacy screening

D: No privacy screening

E: No privacy screening

F: Windows that jut out

Mercy aged care ‐ three storey form impression

Issues remaining on three storey built form (using the legend above)

Source: Base photo: Dr Best; Three storey impression: Planning Panels Victoria

A review of the design related provisions within DDO8 could identify whether further refinements should be made to address built form issues.


Page 35 of 40

(ii) Amenity

The Panel identified tension between:

Protecting resident amenity from new development, versus

Implementing the structure plan that allows higher density and taller built form.

The Panel believes that the inclusion of residential properties within the Sandringham Village Activity Centre boundary recognises that they do not have the same amenity as residential areas outside of the centre. Assessing the impact of new development in any other way would likely result in odd built form outcomes designed to respond to dwellings that are expected to no longer exist in the future. Interim built form inconsistencies are to be expected in Precinct E2 while it transitions from the existing urban form through to the vision set out in the relevant structure plans.

Reducing the mandatory height to 11 metres (three storeys) to address the amenity of backyards of existing single dwellings within Precinct E2 will unnecessarily eliminate opportunities to consider development that can accommodate more than three storeys while achieving the design objectives of DDO8.

(iii) Should Precinct E2 be deleted?

Council and submitters support specific mandatory maximum heights in Precinct E2.

To inform itself as to whether Precinct E2 should be deleted and replaced with Precinct E provisions, the Panel questioned:

How existing and approved development within the precinct that exceeds three storeys will be addressed

Why an ultimately mixed use precinct warrants the same mandatory provisions that apply in residential precincts within the periphery of the activity centre boundary.

The Panel understands and agrees that mandatory 11 metre (three storeys) maximum building heights should apply in Precinct E because it has a strategic role to buffer the surrounding low density residential areas from the more intensely developed areas within the activity centre. However, Precinct E2:

Serves a different role

Is a considerable distance from the low density residential areas

Has larger properties with redevelopment potential

Has existing and approved development that exceeds three storeys.

The Panel has found itself reiterating the words of the C100 Panel:

It makes no sense to apply a three storey maximum height to areas of existing or approved development that are higher than three storeys, and which by their location, configuration or size have been deemed suitable for such development.

Having considered all evidence and submissions, the Panel could not find any relevant change in circumstance since Amendment C100 was gazetted to justify a mandatory three storey building height in Precinct E2.

Although there is insufficient justification for any mandatory maximum heights in Precinct E2, the strong preference for a three storey maximum height and a mandatory five storey


Page 36 of 40

maximum height already exist in the Bayside Planning Scheme. Preferred maximum heights are not to be exceeded unless the proposal provides an exemplary response to the site, its context, design objectives and other policy in the planning scheme. The Panel understands that it takes time and resources to participate in the permit process, however, this is the stage where specific details about the application are known. If built form outcomes continue to be an issue, Council could consider reviewing the design related provisions within DDO8.

5.5 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that a separate Precinct E2 is warranted:

To recognise existing and approved development that is higher than three storeys

Because there is little strategic justification to warrant a mandatory three storey maximum building height.

Although not a formal recommendation, the Panel considers that Council should review the design related provisions within DDO8 to identify whether further refinements could be made to address built form issues.


Page 37 of 40

Appendix A List of Submitters

Amendment C113

Sub No Name of Submitter Sub No Name of Submitter

1 Ms Anne Caddaye (nee Browning) 34 Helen and Ross Shannon

2 Mr Philip Crouch 35 Robert and Carole Boyd

3 Ms Muriel T Lawrence 36 Bill Cowper

4 Mark and Phoebe Burfield 37 J J Kim Wright

5 Mr Richard Howard 38 Lisabeth and George Fletcher

6 Linda Suttie 39 Gillian Inglis

7 Charlotte Terray 40 EPA

8 James Barrett 41 Sandringham Foreshore Association

9 Mr Ronald Edgar and Mrs Fay Bower 42 Jill and David Bough

10 Mrs Diane Crossley 43 Lori Francis

11 Mario and Marie Appiah 44 Jo Storm and Brendan Anderson

12 Ian Pitt SC 45 Kevin Hibberson

13 Yvonne James 46 Mark Lewis

14 Neil McInnes 47 Zoe Hibberson

15 Cecil George and Molly Gwen Kilsby 48 Peter and Eliza St Clair

16 Gweneth May Hollow 49 Lucie Jerabek

17 Tracey Ha'Aolakainapali 50 Diane Wolff

18 Patrick Kinnard 51 Brad Hurley

19 Wayne Maher 52 Jakub Jerabek

20 Mrs Mavis Papadimitriou 53 Autumn Care Properties Pty Ltd

21 Department of Premier and Cabinet 54 Sam and Georgina Magill

22 Anthony Smith 55 Gordon Marshall and Janet Blainey

23 Gavon Fallon 56 Stephen and Margaret Whelan

24 Garry O'Toole 57 Grace and Ken Turnbull

25 Chris Murray 58 Ainslie Allen

26 37 Melrose Street Pty Ltd 59 Sarah Allen

27 Nial Finegan 60 Julie and Malcolm Motherwell

28 Leila Carroll 61 Stephen Morey

29 Norma Symons 62 Justine Lanigan

30 Maggie Madden 63 Justin Collin

31 David and Kathy Lawson 64 Natalie Baker

32 Bryan Meekin 65 Saskia van Weel

33 Sue Cox on behalf of Valda Cox 66 Edwina Stratton


Page 38 of 40


67 Dr Rod Anderson 95 Malcolm Rankin

68 Adam and Anna Whitbread 96 John Kelly

69 Rochina Iannella 97 Michael Garfield

70 Liz Prideaux 98 Andrew and Effie Panayi

71 Jody Allatt 99 Meredith and Ron McInnes

72 Jo Hynes 100 Wendy Chivers

73 Peter Collins 101 James Currie

74 Rosemarie Morriss 102 Brunhild Elton

75 Jane Faulkner 103 Denis Young

76 Elizabeth Walsh 104 Fiona Best

77 Lilia Kuleshova and Yuriy Kuleshov 105 David Caldwell

78 Jill Orr‐Young 106 Regis Aged Care Pty Ltd

79 Bruce Collings 107 Mr and Mrs G Morabito

80 David Robbins 108 Coda Property Group

81 Brian Seddon 109 Bob Whiteway

82 Sharon Jansen 110 Andrew Piddington

83 Peter and Sue Thorp 111 VicTrack

84 Gregory and Jeanette Perkins 112 Dr A. Shayan

85 Noel Futschik 113 Malcolm and Lyndall Baird

86 Michael Butler 114 Peter and Jan Meatherall

87 Sarah Henry 115 Karen Casboult

88 Nancy Butler 116 Jill Symes

89 Ruth Trait 117 Michele and Andrew Guiney

90 Maxwell Ager 118 John and Lesley Roche

91 Mary Anne McKean 119 Bet Rowling

92 Judy Treloar 120 Dr Colin Shingleton and Ms Susan Tierney

93 Public Transport Victoria 121 Richard Batson

94 Ronald Elliot


Page 39 of 40

Amendment C114


1 Mr Chris Bishop 12 EPA

2 Mario Ciconte 13 J A and R F Standaloft

3 Andrew Wallis 14 Clifford Hayes

4 Douglas and Rosita McBeth Weir 15 Peter M Johns

5 Graham Baker 16 Mrs B H Keighley

6 Dean McLeod 17 Andrew Miller and Glenda Johns

7 Department of Premier and Cabinet 18 Martin Barnes and Georgina Hosking

8 Dr Gary Davidson and Dr Cathy Sheehan 19 Lena Glass

9 Julie Weatherhead 20 Brad Garfield

10 Nial Finegan 21 South East Water

11 Teresa Gleeson 22 Public Transport Victoria

Amendment C115


1 David Thomas 13 Nial Finegan

2 Debra Jane Thomas 14 EPA

3 Barbara Paroissien 15 Keith Mutimer

4 South East Water 16 Knowles Group

5 Ric Levy 17 Sarantes Ikonomou

6 Department of Premier and Cabinet 18 Urbis for a landowner

7 John Quinn 19 Serge Alexander

8 Desmond Fitzgerald 20 Deirdre De Blas

9 South East Water 21 J Hill

10 Henrietta Kaye 22 Public Transport Victoria

11 Brenton and Jane Alcorn 23 Lexi Maller

12 Gavon Fallon


Page 40 of 40

Appendix B List of Documents

No Date Description Presented by

1 1/12/2014 Submission on behalf of Bayside City Council Mr Montebello

2 “ Appendix to Council submission “

3 “ Built Form Testing Analysis of Bayside MACs “

4 “ Extract from Council submission to Bayside C100‐103 Panel “

5 “ Housing 7 Population report by DTPLI for Bayside C125 “

6 “ SPPF Clause 11 of VC71 and Clause 11 of VC117 “

7 “ Keeping it Liveable policy Statement by Victorian Labor Party “

8 2/12/2014 Submission by Sarah Henry for Save Sandringham Village Ms Henry

9 “ Submission by Dr Fiona Best and Mr David Robbins Dr Best

10 “ Submission by Andrew Piddington Mr Piddington

11 “ Submission by Robert and Carole Boyd Mr Boyd

12 “ Submission on behalf of Autumn Care Properties Pty Ltd Mr Finlayson

13 “ Aerial photograph of 37 Bay Road, Sandringham Ms Bannister

14 “ Photographs of Bay Road, Sandringham “

15 “ Submission on behalf of Regis Group Pty Ltd “

16 5/12/2014 Submission on behalf of Knowles Group Pty Ltd Mr Canavan

17 “ Plan Melbourne's Message “

18a “ Map locating residence of Mr Chris Bishop Mr Bishop

18b “ Extract from The Age of 7 November 2014 “

19 “ Submission on behalf of Mr Keith Mutimer Mr Wilson

20 “ Submission on behalf of Coda Property Group Mr Indomenico

21 “ Submission by John Kelly Mr Kelly

22 “ Images by Mr Kelly “

23 “ Meatherall and Ors v Bayside CC [2014] VCAT 895 “

24 “ Closing submissions on behalf of Bayside City Council Mr Montebello