Planning Assessment Report by Cyrus Chung

Planning Law and Statutory Planning Assignment 2 Planning Assessment Report for 9 Parker Street, PASCOE VALE VIC 3044

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID: 1392927)

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Table of Contents SUMMARY ................................................................... 1 SUBJECT SITE CONTEXT AND SURROUNDS ................. 3 PROPOSAL .................................................................. 3 PART 1 ........................................................................ 4 1.1 Assessment on Statutory Planning Controls - Planning Permit Triggers. 4 1.2 Assessment against PPF and LPPF .................................................. 11 1.3 Assessment against Clause 55 (ResCode) ....................................... 14 1.4 Recommendations ....................................................................... 14

PART 2 ...................................................................... 15 2.1 Planning scheme interpretation by the applicant .............................. 15 2.2 Overarching planning policy objectives and justifications ................... 16 2.3 Differences of the assessment made by planning officers in local government opposed to the planners in other areas ................................ 16 2.4 Justification with case law/ material reference ................................. 17

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Summary Key Information

Details

Application Number:

MPS/2022/908

Received:

19 December 2022

Applicant:

Georgina Kelly-Papak and William Glover of Paperarc

Planning Scheme:

Merri-bek

Land Address:

9 Parker Street, Pascoe Vale 3044

Proposal:

Construction of 5 three stories Townhouses

Lot and Plan Number:

Lot 6 LP6170

Zoning:

Residential Growth Zone (GRZ) Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 2 (RGZ2)

Overlays:

Clause 43.02: Design and Development Overlay Clause 43.02: Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 24 (DDO24) Clause 45.06: Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO) Clause 45.06: Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (DCPO1) Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay (PO) Clause 45.09 arking Overlay – Precinct 1 Schedule (PO1)

Particular Provision

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Victoria Planning Provisions

Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11.03-2S

Growth areas

Clause 15.01-1S

Urban design

Clause 15.01-1R

Urban design – Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 15.01-2S

Building design

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927) Clause 15.01-4S

Healthy neighbourhoods

15.01-4R

Healthy neighbourhood – Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 15.01-S

Neighbourhood character

Clause 16.01-S

Housing supply

Clause 16.01-1R

Housing supply – Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 16.01-2S

Housing affordability

Clause 19.03-3S

Integrated water management

Local Planning Policy Framework Municipal planning strategy Clause 02.01

Context

Clause 02.02

Vision

Clause 02.03

Strategic directions

Clause 02.04

Strategic framework plans

Local planning strategy Clause 15.01-1L-01 Urban design in Merri-bek Clause 15.01-1L-02 Vehicle access design in Merribek Clause 15.01-2L-01 Building Design in Merri-bek) Clause 15.01-2L-02 Building Design in Neighbourhood and Local Centres Clause 15.01-2L-03 Apartment developments in Merri-bek Clause 15.01-2L-04 Energy efficiency in Merri-bek

Clause 15.01-5L

Minimal and incremental change areas

Clause 16.01-1L

Homes in Merri-bek

Clause 16.01-2S

Housing affordability Merri-bek

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927) Clause 19.03-3L

Water supply, sewerage and drainage in Merri-bek

Subject Site Context and Surrounds The subject site, 9 Parker Street, Pascoe Vale, is parallelogram in shape located on the eastern side of Parker Street between Gafney Street and Hayes Parade. It is situated on the west east side of the Craigieburn railway line approximately 10m away from the track. The subject site is currently vacant and has an area of approximately 756m2, sloping from east to west about 500mm. The site has a Parker Street frontage of 17.0m and side boundaries of 46.0m.

Figure 1: Site Aerial Image

Proposal The proposed development will consist of five three storey units on the lot. All units will have garages on the ground level, living areas on the first floor and bedrooms on ground and second floor. The applicant has provided a concept image of the proposal:

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Figure 2: Proposal concept image 1

Figure 3: Proposal concept image 2

Part 1 1.1

Assessment on Statutory Planning Controls - Planning Permit Triggers

A planning permit is triggered for the proposal pursuant to the following: Clause 32.07 - Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 2 - Pursuant to Clause 32.07-5 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Assignment 2 -

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Schedule 2 ensures the built form outcomes are appropriate to the context of Merri-bek’s Neighbourhood centers. Clause 2 of Schedule 2 to the RGZ2 provided varied requirements to Clause 55. Pursuant to Clause 3 of Schedule 2 to the RGZ2: A permit cannot be granted if building height exceed 13.5m.

Figure 4: Planning Zone Map

Clause 45.06 – Development Contribution Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 -

The subject site is located within Precinct 7 in the DCP Area, applicable rates identified.

Figure 5: DCP Map

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 24 - Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. - Pursuant to Clause 2.0 of the DDO24, buildings and works must meet the design objectives and built form outcomes and should meet the preferred requirements of the schedule.

Figure 6: DDO24 Map

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Figure 7: Areas for Change Map

DDO24 Assessment Requirement Building height

Focus areas for change: Building height must not exceed 13.5m, 4 storey

Proposed 9107cm

Whether complies Y

Assignment 2 Front setback

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927) All buildings with residential uses at ground floor should be setback in accordance with Clause 55.03-1 Standard A3 or B6, or 3 metres, whichever is lesser.

G/F: 3000cm

1/F: 3251cm

2/F: 4327cm

G/F

North: 4502cm

South: 0cm

North: 4500cm

South: 2003cm

North: 4600cm

South: 6149cm

Figure 8: Front setback requirement

Side setback

Primary outlook (living/balcony outlook): 4.5m from the property boundary should be planted with trees. Secondary outlook (bedrooms outlook): 2m from the property boundary should be planted with trees. Any part of a building abutting any other zone must comply with the side setback requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode Standard B17).

Figure 9: Side setback requirement

1/F

2/F

Assignment 2 Rear setback

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927) Buildings abutting a property boundary should be setback:

G/F: 3005cm

1/F: 3256cm

2/F: 4988cm

Individual entries to ground floor dwellings and habitable room windows facing the street.

Provided.

Privacy should be provided by elevating the ground floor approximately 0.5 to 1m above the street level and/or providing landscaping in a front setback.

Front setback is provided with landscaping and brick screen wall is provided.

Building façades should be designed with an appropriate rhythm and proportion that respond to the building’s uses and context, and contribute to a fine grain urban character.

Facade of Townhouse 1 addresses Parker Street with windows and a terrace.

Adopt solid architectural expression that emphasises the street edge through the use of recessed balconies,

The proportions of each element of the building façade,

3m from the property boundary for any part of a building up to a height of 4m. A minimum of 6m from the property boundary for any part of a building exceeding 4m.

Figure 10: Rear setback requirement

Building frontage

Building articulation

Assignment 2

Car parking and vehicle entry

Site services

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927) framed elements and solid balustrades.

including balconies, windows, and doors, have been carefully considered, in order to provide a highquality architectural design.

Side setbacks should incorporate articulation to break down building mass through the use of materials and finishes.

Incorporated.

Locating vehicle access to the rear of buildings wherever possible, or to the side.

Direct internal access to the main entrance corridor of the Townhouse.

Car parking cannot be seen from the public.

Car park is an enclosed garage.

Pedestrian safety and sight lines should be maximised.

N/A

Service infrastructure concealed or integrated into building design.

Hydraulic, fire and electrical services are located in cabinets that are coloured to blend in with the development.

Waste storage areas screened from view of the street.

Waste storage located at the rear of the development.

Not addresse d

Assignment 2 Landscapin g

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927) Provide at least one tree in the front setback.

2 Canopy Trees are provided in the front setback

Provide tree planting along the side and rear boundaries.

2 Canopy Trees are provided in the rear setback.

N Side setback are provided with landscapi ng only.

Clause 45.09 – Parking Overlay The subject site is within the Parking Overlay – Schedule 1 (PO1). Column B in Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5 identifies the permit trigger for parking reduction at Clause 52.06. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory, as it is within the required parking rates, as follows: Use

Column B 1

Dwelling

1.2

Column C

Proposed

To each one or two bedroom dwelling, plus

Complies.

To each three bedroom dwelling (with studios or studios that are separate room counted as bedrooms) plus For visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings

Eight x 2-bedroom dwellings are proposed, each provided with one space in a single garage. It is noted that an open study room is included in Unit 1. Since it is not fully enclosed, it arguably may not constitute a room by definition.

Assessment against PPF and LPPF

Response to the Planning Policy Framework at state level At state level, the following is noted: -

Clause 11 (Settlement) identify the directions for sustainable growth and development of Victoria and deliver choice and opportunity for all by a network of settlement.

Assignment 2 -

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Clause 15 (Build Environment and Heritage) identify strategies and policy directions on building design, housing supply and neighbourhood characteristic in Victoria. Clause 16 (Housing) sets the objectives and strategics regarding housing supply and affordability. Clause 19 (Infrastructure) sets the directions on infrastructure design integrated water management.

Officer comments: The proposal is able to provide higher quality living environments and promotes accessibility to amenities (15.01-1S). Although the existing residents’ sense of place within the surrounding neighbourhood maybe threatened by the proposed townhouse with modern architectural style (15.01-5S), overall it is considered that that the overarching policies anticipate the delivery of increased housing. Therefore the proposal is considered consistent with the PPF. Response to the Planning Policy framework at municipal and local levels Municipal Level -

Clause 02.02 (Vision) Clause 02.03 (Strategic directions) o Clause 02.03-1 (Settlement) o Clause 02.03-4 (Build environment and heritage) o Clause 02.03-5 (Housing)

Assignment 2 -

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Clause 02.04 (Strategic framework plan)

Figure 11: Merri-bek Housing Framework Plan

Local Level Relevant local level policies are outlined as follows: -

Clause 15.01-1L-01 (Urban design in Merri-bek) Clause 15.01-1L-02 (Vehicle access design in Merri-bek) Clause 15.01-2L-01 (Building Design in Merri-bek) Clause 15.01-2L-02 (Building Design in Neighbourhood and Local Centres) Clause 15.01-2L-03 (Apartment developments in Merri-bek) Clause 15.01-2L-04 (Energy efficiency in Merri-bek) Clause 15.01-5L (Minimal and incremental change areas) Clause 16.01-1L (Homes in Merri-bek)

Assignment 2 -

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Clause 16.01-2S (Housing affordability Merri-bek) Clause 19.03-3L (Water supply, sewerage and drainage in Merri-bek)

Officer Comments: The subject land is located within an Focus Area for change area which is identified to have capacity for housing growth, offering a good access to services and transport. Overall the development is an opportunity to increase the housing density and respects neighbourhood character, responding appropriately to the housing policy direction in municipal and local level of the LPPF.

1.3

Assessment against Clause 55 (ResCode) CLAUSE 55.05 ON-SITE AMENITY AND FACILITIES

Title

Objective

Standard

Complies/ Does Not Comply/ Variation Required

55.05-2

To provide each dwelling or residential building with its own sense of identity.

Entries to dwellings and residential buildings should:

Complies, objective met and standard satisfied.

Dwelling Entry Objective – Standard B26

1.4

Be visible and easily identifiable from streets and other public areas. Provide shelter, a sense of personal address and a transitional space around the entry.

The entrance to each Townhouse is identifiable using different coloured doors, providing sense of personal address. Each entrance has a covered front porch and a transitional space, highlighted by a coloured stripe in driveway.

Recommendations

The development is generally consistent with the relevant planning policies of the Merri-bek Planning Scheme and will contribute to a higher density of housing in the Significant Housing Growth area. The development is able to provide high quality housing and a building that respect the build form scale of the surrounding. However, the council wishes for the following issues to be addressed before the permit can be issued. Grant a permit, subject to the following conditions:

Assignment 2 -

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Building design incorporate DDO24 overlay requirements. o Provide tree canopy in the North facing side setback. o Maximise pedestrian safety in vehicle access

Refusal to grant a permit, for the following reasons: (1754 words)

Part 2 2.1

Planning scheme interpretation by the applicant

The town planning report provided the applicant’s assessment on the relevant planning provision, particularly the Clause 55 Res code. Report did provide the assessment on the different planning controls. In particular the planning policy framework as well as the planning provisions on zones and overlays under Standard B2. Addressing whether the development follows the PPF and LPPF as well as whether the proposed development is suitable under the current planning zone and overlay. However it did not provide the further assessment on overlay DDO24. DDO24 has provided extra set of built form requirements to comply to. There are few gaps missing in the town planning report assessment that failed to fully address to the requirements listed in DDO24 Clause 2. This can be a result of a biased assessment completed on the applicant’s own interest. By interpreting the planning scheme on their own perspective. It is noted that the assessment of Clause 55 rescode is appeared to be fully comply, this is mainly due to the fact that the some of the responses provided for particular standards heavily rely on the drawings of the development plan. This leads to an ambiguity of the response as it failed to clearly delivered whether the building design comply to the Rescode, and require council review on the development drawings. The landscape plan is provided as an application requirement set in Clause 4 of Residential Growth Zone Schedule 2. Which the report has showed existing vegetation and the proposed tree, vegetation, planting plan. This ensure the contractor of the development are able to ensure the vegetation and trees proposed in the site are able to grow to the required height and maintained to comply with the building standards. The Acoustic Report provided an assessment on the noise pollution coming from the railway/ train station just next to the subject site. Although this report is not mandatory for the application, it responds to the RFI in relation to noise abatement for residential development abuts a train station. The report showed that the noise criteria design guidelines follows the VCAT decision for a development near the Pascoe Vale train station. The proposal is found to have provided adequate design on noise abatement.

Assignment 2

2.2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

Overarching planning policy objectives and justifications

Clause 16.01-1L identified Housing density increase is encouraged in the form of apartments and townhouses in areas identified as Significant Housing growth on the Strategic Framework Plan: Housing at Clause 02.04. The provided development plan is able to address this objective by developing a three storeys townhouse. The development plan is also able to address the build environment objectives identified in Clause 15.01. The SDA Report addressed several issues related to sustainable building design features, including the following: -

energy efficiency overall water efficiency storm water management building materials transport waste management

The above design features addressed the overarching planning policy objectives provided in Clause 15.01. Regarding strategies such as ensuring service infrastructure and waste storage; Improve the energy performance of buildings; Minimise stormwater discharge through site layout and landscaping measures that support on-site infiltration and stormwater reuse; Incorporating integrated water management and water sensitive urban design. In particular, the SDA Report is a direct response to Clause 15.01-2L-05, as well as Clause 19.03-3S, 19.03-3L and 19.03-5S. The Landscape plan provided is a direct response to Clause 15.01-5L which sets out the objective to Create or enhance a landscape character by designing and siting new development to integrate generous landscaping through the retention of existing canopy trees (where practical) and the planting of new canopy trees and vegetation in incremental change areas. The report is able to list out the planting procedure and how will the vegetation be maintained. The Acoustics Report and Lighting Power Density also support the overall strategic directions regarding minimising noise level and improving energy efficiency in residential developments as indicated in Clause 15.01.

2.3

Differences of the assessment made by planning officers in local government opposed to the planners in other areas

The main reason planning officers in LGA have differences in assessment as opposed to the consultants is they both represent very different parties and held different roles. For planning officers in local government, they represent and implement objectives and policies set by the government at local and state level.

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

The main focus is to serve and protect the public interests in the local area. Therefore their assessments will have a focus on whether the development can achieve the local and state government goals. Public interest will be prioritised to review whether the development has a positive and sustainable impact to the local community and taking the community needs into account. Council planning officers also consider broader perspective in balancing the interest between different stakeholders such as utilities provider, government agencies and other stakeholders involved in the development. For planners in state government. The projects and development assessing has a bigger scale, which can be across several local government area and a large region. For example, a major freeway project can run across multiple cities. Planners have to have a broader consideration and have a region/ state approach rather than take in account of the public interest of a local government area. Also, major projects and development often has a top down approach, planning are more on a strategic level. For planners in private consultancy, they may have a client focused mindset when conducting their assessment. They work on their developments with a smaller scope which is to meet the goal and preferences set by the client. Their work has a huge focus on achieving and maximising their client interest, this can be maximising the project profit, achieving client’s design outcome. Although they have a heavy focus from client’s interest, their assessment are still bound by the planning provisions. In conclusion the difference are resulted by the representation of different parties and interests, as well as the scope of development. Their difference can be quite contradicting and therefore the assessment made by planners in different areas will have noticeable biases involved in their decision making. The planning schemes and policy in place is able to minimise this biased, by listing out strict regulation on matters such as land use and built forms. However the strictness of these planning controls can leads to hurdles in designing new developments and creating time cost for the application process.

2.4

Justification with case law/ material reference

The planning control have strict restriction on the build form objective within a planning zone. Even when the area encourages higher density development. In 2019, VCAT refused proposal for a residential tower in South Yarra, the VCAT decision in C&L International Holdings Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC refused a 20 storey tower at a building height of 68m (Lee & Teoh, 2020). The ACZ1 zone sets a maximum height of 38m. VCAT stated that each proposal must be considered to meet the built form objectives of the zone. The proposal was found to be too tall and blocking the views of Melbourne High School building and require a redesign of the proposal.

Assignment 2

Pak Hei Cyrus Chung (ID:1392927)

VCAT decision from this case showed that even when the area encourage high density development, the built form and height limit sets in the Planning Scheme has to be followed in order to protect the character of the area. Also the decision put community benefits into account, ensuring public interest over applicant’s interest. However, it can be argued that the planning controls are contradicting to the strategies suggested in the planning policy framework. In order to support more affordable housing and ease housing shortage problem in Melbourne, high density mixed use development should be encouraged with less restrictions. With the current planning scheme controls, it is hard to fully achieve the objective in the PPF. When the development of new housing could not catch up to support Melbourne’s growing populations, these planning control should be amended in order to keep up to date to current social issues. For example the development proposal in this assignment, although it is located in a growth area zone that encourage high density housing to be build, a max height of 13m and 4 storey is by no means a “high density”, it is party due to the reason that the planning control has strong focus to protect the neighborhood characteristic. In the most idealist way, the local government can participate in the development and develop a larger area through land readjustment, rather than just develop the area lot by lot. This can truly achieve a high density development with coordination. VCAT decisions on strict implementation of the planning control can leads to developers creating similar proposal in the area. From regulator perspective, this would be a good outcome as every develop follow the planning regulations. However, this does not necessary favours local public interest all the time. Therefore planning provision can become a ‘double edged sword’, contradicting the planning policy framework. (1498 words)

References Lee, M., & Teoh, Z. (2020). VCAT refuses proposal for a residential tower in South Yarra. Gadens. https://www.gadens.com/legalinsights/vcat-refuses-proposal-for-a-tall-tower-in-southyarra/#:~:text=VCAT%20has%20overturned%20the%20decision,th e%20subject%20site%20by%2030m.