LATE ITEM NO. 8.6 8.6 Chirnside Park Country Club Golf Course ...

LATE ITEM NO. 8.6The other proposed changes to DPO3 relate to replacing the word „must‟ to „should‟ underpart 2 building envelope requirements, Part 3 decision guidelines and Part 5 requirementsfor the Development Plan. The reasons behind these proposed changes suggest that theproponent does not want to be bound by the requirements of the DPO. An analysis of theproponent‟s Development Plan, which will be discussed later in this report, identifies thatmany requirements of the DPO3 are in fact not met.There are aspects of the current DPO3 that are of concern but these are not the subject ofthe current Amendment request. The areas of concern include the following:A reduction in Public Open Space (POS) provision from 23 percent to 20 percent.The Development Plan showing POS to be in form of a linear design abutting the siteboundary.The alternative road access points utilising Rolling Hills Road and Peden Street.Not specifying an ultimate development yield but requiring medium density andhigher density housing.The requirement for a building envelope on each lot created.In responding to the Minister it is recommended that Council convey the above concernsof the current DPO3 and that it is willing to further discuss refinements to DPO3, but thatany change to the DPO should be undertaken through a normal planning schemeamendment, with full public notification.Minister to become the Responsible Authority for approving the development planUnder the DPO3, a development plan is required to be approved by the ResponsibleAuthority before permits can be issued for development of the site, including subdivision.As is the case for all development plans, the development plan must be prepared inaccordance with any requirements specified in the schedule to the development plan andany subsequent planning permit must be generally in accordance with the approveddevelopment plan. Planning permits that are generally in accordance with thedevelopment plan are exempt from third party notification and appeal rights.Following the Minister‟s intervention and approval Amendment C96, which rezoned thegolf course to a Residential 1 Zone and applied DPO3 to the site, it was understood thatthe proponent would be required to submit to Council a development plan for approval.Given the fact that the development plan would need to respond to the requirements ofDPO3 and was therefore likely to be different from the previously exhibited DevelopmentPlan, it was Council‟s understanding that approval of the development plan would involvefurther community consultation.YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA - 09/11/10 4

LATE ITEM NO. 8.6Council officers are seeking clarification on the Minister‟s intention to undertake furthercommunity consultation, if he did become the Responsible Authority for approving thedevelopment plan. While this aspect is still not clear, there is a risk that he will approvethe Development Plan without further consultation, despite the proposal being substantiallydifferent from the original concept considered under Amendment C67. Should Councilagree to the Minister being the Responsible Authority for approval of the DevelopmentPlan, Council will lose the ability to negotiate with the proponent on the final design andhave no say on whether further consultation should occur as part of the Development Planapproval process. Council will also lose control over future requests to amend theDevelopment Plan, as such requests would become the responsibility of the Minister.Therefore it is recommended that Council does not support the Minister becoming theResponsible Authority for approving the Development Plan, as this will diminish the abilityof Council to be actively involved in planning the future development of this site. With theMinister as the Responsible Authority, this would also threaten the ability of the localcommunity to provide input into how the land should be developed.Planning scheme amendment requestOverall it is considered that the proposed changes requested to the DPO schedule are notwarranted. It is also recommended that the Minister should not utilise his powers undersection 20(4) of the Act to prepare and approve the amendment without furtherconsultation. The proposed changes are directly contrary to the provisions that wererecommended by the Advisory Committee and approved by the Minister. The justificationfor approving Amendment C96 under section 20(4) of the Act, was made on the basis thatthe proposal had been considered by an Advisory Committee and that therecommendations of that Committee had been implemented by applying the revisedDevelopment Plan Overlay Schedule 3. A copy of the Minister‟s Reasons for Decision toExercise Power of Intervention, outlines his reasons for preparing and approving theAmendment. In this summary, the Minister specifically states:“The Advisory Committee has considered it appropriate that any further consultationbe limited to the informal notification of a Development Plan if, in the view of theCouncil, the proposal deviates substantially from the plans considered at theCommittee hearing”.Under paragraph 15 it also states:All issues identified by the Advisory Committee have been addressed through theSchedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay. The proponent will be required toprepare a Development Plan to the satisfaction of the Yarra Ranges Shire Council,having regard to the objectives, requirements and conditions, and the decisionguidelines set out in the overlay. A permit cannot be granted for the subdivision of theland into residential allotments until a Development Plan has been prepared.A copy of the Minister‟s Reasons for Decision to Exercise Power of Intervention isprovided in Attachment 4.YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA - 09/11/10 5

LATE ITEM NO. 8.6In approving Amendment C96, the Minister gave every indication that Yarra RangesCouncil would be the Responsible Authority for approving the Development Plan. He alsoconfirmed the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and acknowledged the needfor further consultation if in the view of the Council, the proposed development deviatessubstantially from the plans considered at the Committee hearing (ie. those exhibitedunder Amendment C67). It is considered that the proposed Development Plan is asubstantial change from the previously exhibited plan and as such should require furthercommunity consultation.Preliminary comments on the proponent’s development planIn addition to the proposed Ministerial amendment, the DPCD has provided a copy of theproponent‟s latest Development Plan for the site. While it would appear Council will beprovided with a further opportunity to comment on the Development Plan, (should theMinister become the Responsible Authority for approving the plan), this section of thereport provides some preliminary feedback on the latest Development Plan proposal. It isrecommended that this preliminary feedback be forwarded to the Minister.The following table summarises key differences between the Development Plan asexhibited under Amendment C67 and considered by the Advisory Committee and theproponent‟s revised Development Plan forwarded to Council by DPCD.ComparisonExhibited DevelopmentPlan(Amendment C67)Revised DevelopmentPlan(Under new DPO3)DifferenceDwelling numbers 450551 +72* 173 increase(excludes 0.42hasuperlot)Public Open Space 13.69 ha 12.15 ha 1.54 ha reductionReduction in totalopen space andsignificant reductionin the usability ofthis spaceTraffic impacts 4500 vehicle movements 6500 vehicle movements 2000 increaseExisting treesretainedper dayper day1119 708 411** decreaseExisting trees 1248 1543 295** decreaseremovedMedium densityhousing lot4200m2 26,000m2 21,800m2(no plans submitted)Lot sizes 440 – 1532m2 272 – 1199m2Lot yieldBased on total lots/golfcourse area of 54.78ha8.2 lots/ha 11.37 lots/ha 3.17lots/ha increase* estimated yield from 2.6ha medium density lot**total tree numbers: 27 May 2008 = 2367, 4 April 2010 = 2251YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA - 09/11/10 6

LATE ITEM NO. 8.6Lot yieldsThe comparison shows that the proponent is seeking to maximise the development yield ofthe site, by substantially reducing lot sizes and reducing the amount of public open space.The proposal has significantly increased the proportion of lots that are below 500m2 from10 percent to 43 percent of the total number of lots. This figure does not include the 2.6halot earmarked for “medium density” housing.While there is a case for introducing some smaller lots into the development to increasehousing diversity, the revised layout is a stark contrast to the surrounding residentialdevelopment and will provide little opportunity to retain existing trees on private lots orprovide an opportunity to grow new canopy trees. Below is a comparison of the lot sizebreakdown under the development plan exhibited under Amendment C67 and consideredby the Advisory Committee and the latest development plan prepared by the proponent.Housing summary: exhibited development plan under Amendment C67Lot size Total number Percentage %400 - 499 47 10500 - 599 114 25600 - 699 148 33700 - 799 61 14800+ 80 18Total 450 100Housing summary: proponent’s development planLot size Total number Percentage %200 - 299 31 6300 - 399 23 4400 - 499 182 33500 - 599 212 38600+ 103 19Total 551 100VegetationAccording to the proponent‟s landscape plan under the previously exhibited DevelopmentPlan out of a total of 2367 trees 22 remnant trees, 299 high retention value trees and 799low retention value trees can be retained. Under the new Development Plan out of a totalof 2251 trees 14 remnant trees, 146 high retention value trees and 548 low retention valuetrees can be retained.YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA - 09/11/10 7

LATE ITEM NO. 8.6Public Open SpaceThe configuration of public open space has also been reduced and the layout altered. Keychanges include the following:A significant reduction in the size of public open space (POS) areas at the northernends of the development, where the proposed wetlands are to be located and wherethe land is predominantly flat and functional for public use and recreation.The removal of two POS areas within the development that were identified to protectsignificant vegetation and to improve the overall subdivision design.A decrease in the extent of useable POS as much of the proposed POS is eithersteep and/or narrow in width.Traffic and accessGiven the time constraints in preparing this report a detailed analysis of the trafficimplications associated with the revised Development Plan has not been undertaken. Theproponent‟s traffic consultant report indicates that the existing road network canaccommodate the vehicle traffic associated with the proposed development. However,with the estimated increase of 2000 vehicle movements per day resulting from theadditional number of dwellings, it is reasonable to assume that this is likely to put a strainon the local road network, particularly during peak periods. The proposed accesstreatments will need to be reviewed, as well the adequacy of footpaths and mitigationmeasures proposed.In response to the DPO provisions which require consideration of alternative accessarrangements, the proponent‟s Development Plan identifies future pedestrian connectionpoints at Peden Street and Rolling Hills Road. However it then identifies that these accesspoints are subject to Council acquisition and in the case of Peden Street, the DevelopmentPlan does not even provide POS abutting the proposed access point. It therefore can onlybe concluded that these notations were put on the Development Plan by the proponent tosatisfy the DPO provisions rather than actually create these pedestrian access points.These additional access points would provide greater permeability through the site,particularly to Rolling Hills Road but they should be undertaken by the developer and notby Council.CONCLUSIONThe latest request from the Minister for Planning to modify the Development Plan Overlayand to become the Responsible Authority for approval of the Development Plan, is anindication of how the Minister‟s previous intervention has failed to deliver an appropriateplanning framework for this site. It is also an indication that the proponent is not preparedto work with Council or the community, to deliver a proposal that responds appropriately tothe unique characteristics of the site and its physical constraints.YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA - 09/11/10 8

LATE ITEM NO. 8.6In response to the Minister‟s request it is recommended that Council does not agree to thechanges to the DPO3 schedule as outlined, but is prepared to review the Schedule as partof a planning scheme amendment with full public notification. Council should not supportthe Minister becoming the Responsible Authority for approving the Development Plan, asthis will undermine local democracy and Council‟s ability to influence the final design of thedevelopment now and into the future. It will also reduce the ability for the local communityto provide input into the final Development Plan for the site.Finally the Development Plan prepared by the proponent is totally inappropriate for the siteand confirms why the Minister should reject the proponent‟s request for him to intervene inthis matter. The appropriate course of action is for the Minister to encourage the proponentto work with Council, in preparing an amendment to modify the current DPO schedule sothat it is workable and to submit to Council a revised Development Plan that appropriatelyresponds to the site. Council can then consider the Development Plan and as part of theapproval process seek the views of the local community.RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Not support changes to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 3 sought by theChirnside Park Country Club as outlined in Attachment 2 and request that anychanges sought to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 3 be undertaken through anormal planning scheme amendment with full public notification.2. Not support the Minister for Planning becoming the Responsible Authority forapproving the Development Plan pursuant to Development Plan Overlay schedule 3.3. Express its concerns regarding the submitted Development Plan as outlined in thisreport and requests that Council remain the Responsible Authority for approving theDevelopment Plan for the site.4. Convey to the Minister for Planning that should he decide to become the planningauthority for amending the Development Plan Overlay that he undertake full publicnotification of the amendment.5. Convey to the Minister for Planning that should he decide to become the ResponsibleAuthority for approving the Development Plan that he commits to seeking the views ofthe local community before approving the plan.YARRA RANGES SHIRE COUNCIL AGENDA - 09/11/10 9

·²¬®±¼«½¬·±²

°´¿²²·²¹ ½±²­·¼»®¿¬·±²­