Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Planning Assessment Report Application Details Application is for: Applicant’s/Owner’s Name: Date Received: Statutory Days: Application Number: Planner: Land/Address: Zoning: Overlays:
Under what clause(s) is a permit required?
Restrictive covenants on the title? Current use and development:
The development for 23 dwellings within two triple-story buildings, which will include space for 28 parking spaces. Property View PTY LTD 21st February, 2014 28 Days MPS/2014/49 Moreland City Council / Hugh Utting 74-80 Tinning Street, Brunswick, 3056 / Lot1 TP15538 Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) Schedule to Mixed Use Zone Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (DDO1) Environment Audit Overlay (EAO) Clause 32.04 MUZ Section 2 Clause 32.06 Construction and Extension of 2 or more dwellings on a lot Clause 55 Requirements Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Clause 43.02— 2 Building Works Clause 52.06— 3 Car Parking Permit Requirement N/A
Vacant brick warehouse factory
1. The Proposal 1.1 Proposed development Property View proposes redeveloping 74-80 Tinning Street from a light industrial warehouse into a multi-unit residence, consisting of 23 dwellings in two detached townhouse blocks. The applicant’s proposal would result in the demolition of the existing warehouse and change the use of the site. The dwellings proposed are a mixture of two and three bedroom townhouses. •
11 x 2 Bedroom Townhouses
Hugh Utting 389 145
•
7 x 2 Bedrooms Townhouses with gardens
•
5 x 3 Bedrooms Townhouses
ABPL 901030
Each proposed townhouses will contain 3 levels; with the ground floor featuring garage and secondary areas, first floor featuring kitchen/living/dining, and bedrooms on the second floor.
1.2 Access Property View specifies that the townhouses will have a variety of access options; •
14 townhouses will face the central internal driveway
•
7 townhouses will face Tinning Street directly,
•
2 townhouses will face the western access/carriageway.
There are 28 on-site parking spaces located within the development, the majority of which are accessed by the internal driveway. There are also two new crossovers proposed at the Tinning Street frontage of the site, which is a decrease from the existing three.
Additionally, bicycle parking is proposed in the garage of each
townhouse, with the use of storage units or elevated storage racks.
1.3 Materials South Elevation - Tinning Street Frontage The materials are a combination of brick in dark tone with brick detailing, timber cladding in a dark stain and natural oil finish. Screened glazing will be placed on the walls, which will have a minimum 75% opaque film, with 25 % transparency level.. The glazing will be bordered with a horizontal timber lining in natural oil finish. Vertical timber batten will be used for the fence, and vertical aluminum for the balustrade.
North, West, East Elevation The proposal stipulates a combination of a dark tone brick and natural clay tone will be used on the exterior. Other materials used will be timber cladding in a dark stain and natural oil finish, aluminum streets, balustrades will be vertical aluminum.
1.4 Site Coverage
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
The site area is 2188 square meters; the proposed development will cover 1412 square metres (64.5%) of the site, leaving 162 square metres (7.4%) of permeable area. The proposed 23 dwellings total area equates to 3693 square metres.
2. Subject site and locality 2.1 Site Description 74-80 Tinning Street is a double story former industrial warehouse with a land size of 2,188 square meters; it is classified as a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). A double story brick warehouse currently occupies the majority of the site, which was constructed in the 1980s, as illustrated in Figure 1, 2 & 3. The site presently includes parking on the internal driveway on the Western side of the property, and facing Tinning street. Property View is presently not occupying the site and the building is currently unoccupied. Map
One:
Location
of
Property (DPCD,2014) Figure
One:
74-80
Tinning
Street, View from Tinning Street (Utting, 2014)
Figure Two: Northern side of the site (Utting,2014)
Figure Three: Car parking space (Utting, 2014)
2.2 Surrounding Neighbourhood Characteristics Northern (Rear) Southern (Across, Tinning Street)
Heritage listed two story brick dwellings, and shared parking facilities accessed by internal driveway. Single-storey detached weatherboard and a double story brick apartment building, which is facing the site.
Easterly Side (Along Tinning Street) Westerly Side (Along Tinning Street)
Multi-storey brick apartment building directly opposite the site. Single-storey detached weatherboard house built to western boundary of the driveway/ site.
2.3 Locality An inspection of the locality revealed there are a diverse range of plot styles and uses along Tinning Street; ranging from single detached weatherboard or Masonry
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
dwellings, 1970s modernist brick apartment, modernist high-density apartments and light industrial warehouses, as illustrated in Figure 4, 5 & 6. The site sits adjacent to detached weatherboard properties that are part of a Heritage Zone. The majority of the properties are set back from the street and include front gardens.
Figure Four: West-View Tinning Street (Utting, 2014) (Utting, 2014) Figure Six: Warehouse Tinning Street (Utting, 2014) Buildings behind site
Figure Five: 84 Tinning Street Figure Seven: Northern
The area around 74-80 Tinning Street notably marks a transition from low-density, detached residential dwellings of Brunswick West. Shifting into a varied Mixed Use Zone featuring light-industrial commercial sites and medium density dwellings adjunct to the Anstey Train Station. There has been significant densification of the neighbouring properties along Tinning Street, including the redevelopment of 70-74 Tinning Street, a heritage listed former warehouse into contemporary three story terraces, as illustrated in Figure Eight. These new developments have set a prescient of multi-story redevelopments along Tinning Street and reflect the property markets appetite for apartments in the area, which are close to public transport and amenities.
Figure Eight: New apartments Tinning Street (Utting, 2014
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Figure Nine: 70-74 Tinning Street (Utting, 2014)
The site is uniquely positioned within a high frequency transport corridor; 503 Bus Route (350 meters), Upfield Train Line Path (450 meters), the dedicated Upfield Line bicycle Path (450 meters) and the Number 19 Sydney Road Tram (500 meters). Furthermore, the site is close vicinity to community services and amenities; Moreland Community Child Care Co-Operative (50 meters), John Faulkner Private Hospital (650 meters), Brunswick North Primary School (650 meters) and Sydney Road retail precinct (500 meters).
2.4 Environment The environmental characteristics of Tinning Street compromise of; flat topography, tree lined streets featuring predominantly native species Eucalyptus “caesia” bark, ficifolia and Acer “Sekaki” trees, and Correa alba shrubs. The site is in close proximity to Jacobs and Reaburn Reserve.
3. Permit Site and History 74-80 Tinning Street was previously owned by New Zealand, agricultural textile manufacturing firm Donaghys Sarlon Industries PTY Ltd (Donaghys, 2014, Personal Communication). Donaghys Sarlon Industries used the building as a warehouse and distribution centre for it’s Victorian operations Donaghys, 2014, Personal Communication) . Donaghys Sarlon Industries sold the site to Property View in 2013.
4. Public Notifications 4.1 Advertisement The applicant has followed the procedure as Section 52 of the Planning and Environmental Act 1987. The notification process has been carried out correctly. Notifications
Notification letters were sent to the adjoining and
Hugh Utting 389 145
Newspaper Advertisements Site Notice Exhibition Dates Exhibition Venue Community Consultation Meeting
ABPL 901030
nearby landowners/ occupiers Moreland Leader, 11th March, 2014 Yes - public notice was displayed for 14 days on the Tinning Street frontage of the site. 3rd – 20th March 2014 Brunswick Town Hall – 233 Sydney Road Brunswick Held 20th March 2014, at Brunswick Town Hall. Ten people attended.
4.2 Objections Council has received (4) objections to date. The key issues that were raised in the objections are: Objection 1. Increase in traf fic and congestion along driveway Raised by: 80A Tinning Street Consideration: The increase in traffic has been addressed through the expansion of the existing crossover to allow up to two vehicles to enter and exit simultaneously.
Objection 2. Increase in Car parking congestion Raised by: 87 Tinning Street Consideration: The proposal will provide suf ficient-parking spaces within the site itself, it does not include visitor parking. The proposal is echoing council objectives to encourage sustainable transport alternatives. Accordingly bicycle racks have been provided in each dwelling to promote active transportation.
Objection 3. Development scale within the context of existing town character is too big, additionally there will be overshadowing. Raised by: 20 Tinning Street Consideration: The site is in an activity centre prescient that has been earmarked for greater densification, in accordance with State and Local planning policy guidelines. The proposed buildings designs are a contemporary additional to the area, and help foster a diverse architectural style. The bulk of the building is above some guidelines; conditions will be set to fix this issue. Shadow diagrams have been drawn by council and are considered compliant with the requirements of B21.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Objection 4. Development will not respect privacy issues. Raised by: 22 Tinning Street Consideration: Privacy issues have been reviewed by council and comply with standards set in B22.
5. Referrals Referral Notices Section 55 referrals
VicRoads Melbourne Water Telstra AusNet Electricity All owners and occupiers of the allotments have been notified.
Section 52 Referrals
6. Assessment 6.1 Planning Controls Internal Council Referrals Clause 32.04 Mixed Use Zone (MUZ)
Advice/Response/Conditions The proposal must meet the requirements of Clause 55. A Planning permit is required to construct two or more dwelling on the lot. A permit is required to construct, a front fence within three meters of the street if the building is residential. MUZ encourages development of medium and high density housing.
DPCD,2014A)
Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (DDO)
(
The proposal respects the State Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Policy Frameworks, Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
DPCD,2014B)
Clause 43.02 Design and Environment Overlay – Schedule 1 Heritage Protection (DDO1)
(
74-80 Tinning Street is surrounded by some properties that are heritage listed. Therefore, before deciding on the application, the Responsible Authority must consider the heritage characteristics of the Brunswick area around 74-80 Tinning Street, by evaluating the Brunswick Heritage Study “Keeping Brunswick’s Heritage”. The Responsible Authority must consider if the proposal impacts of the development on 64-72 Tinning Street and 7-9 Cassels Road Downes. (DPCD,2014C)
Clause 45.03 Environment Audit Overlay (EAO)
As 74-80 Tinning Street was formally used for industrial purposes the soil on the land may be contaminated. The EAO demands, before a sensitive use (residential use) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings the land is tested for soil contamination; environmental audit must be issues in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970. (DPCD,2014D)
An analysis of the application against the requirements of Clause 54/55 of the planning scheme is attached to this report.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
6.2 State Planning Policy Framework SPPF Clause Clause 11: Settlement, including 11.01 Activity Centres 11.02 Urban Growth 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 13: Environmental Risks, including 13.03 Soil Degradation Clause 14: Natural Resource Management, 14.02-3 Water Conservation Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage 15.01 Urban Design 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 16: Housing 16.01 Residential Development
Compliance Complies
Complies Complies Complies
Complies
The proposal complies with the SPFF framework objective.
6.3 Local Planning Policy Framework Clause Clause 21.03 Key Influences and Issues Clause 21.04 Moreland’s Vision Clause 21.05 Objectives – Strategies 21.05-2 Housing 21.05-4 Heritage 21.05-5 Urban Design, Urban Character and Street Landscape 21.05-9: Integrated Transport Systems 21.05-10: Infrastructure Clause 22.02: Development Within Designated Activity Centres and Urban Villages Clause 22.05: Developments Within the Upfield Corridor Clause 22.09: Vehicle Crossings (Driveways) Clause 22.10: Neighbourhood Character The proposal complies with the LPFF framework objective.
6.4 Relevant Particular Provisions
Compliance Complies Complies Complies
Complies Complies
Complies Complies
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Clause
Clause 52.01: Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.11: Home Occupation Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings Clause 56: Subdivision Site and Context Description and Design Response
Compliance
Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies
The proposal complies with the relevant provisions.
6.5 Relevant Particular Provisions Clause Clause 65.01: Approval of an Application or Plan Clause 65.02: Approval of an Application to Subdivide Land
Compliance Complies Complies
The proposal complies with the relevant provisions.
6.6 ResCode Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure - Clause 55.02 Standard Compliance Standard B1 Complies Neighbourhood Character Objectives
Standard B2 Residential Policy Objectives
Complies
Standard B3 Dwelling Diversity Objective
Complies
Standard B4 Infrastructure objectives
Complies
Standard B5 Integration with the street objective
Complies
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Site Layout and Building Massing – Clause 55.03 Standard Compliance Standard B6 Complies Street setback objective Standard B7 Does Not Comply The total building height of the proposal is Building Height Objective 11.2 meters, which 2.2meters over the maximum height. Changes of the building height between the new and existing buildings are not graduated. Standard B8 Does Not Comply Site coverage objective The proposal will be covering 64.5% area, which is over the council limit of 60%. Standard B9 Does Not Comply Permeability objectives The proposal has a permeability area of 7.4 %, which is below the council limit of at least 20%. Standard B10 Complies Energy efficiency objectives Standard B11 Open space objective
Complies
Standard B12 Safety objective
Complies
Standard B13 Landscaping objectives
Complies
Standard B14 Access objectives
Complies
Standard B15 Parking location objectives
Complies
Standard B16 Parking provision objectives
Does Not Comply The proposal does not have visitor parking spots. Additionally, the End-to-End parking spaces do not comply with standards, as they are 17cm too short.
Amenity Impacts – Clause 55.04 Standard Standard B17 Side and rear setbacks objective Standard B18 Walls on boundaries objective
Compliance Complies
Complies
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Standard B19 Daylight to existing windows objective
Complies
Standard B20 North-facing windows objective
Complies
Standard B21 Overshadowing open space objective Standard B22 Overlooking objective
Complies Complies
Standard B23 Internal views objective
Does Not Comply Dwellings 9, 10, 21 and 22 do not meet council regulations. These dwellings have more then 50% of their private open space, being looked into.
Standard B24 Noise impacts objectives
Complies
On-Site Amenity and Facilities – Clause 55.05 Standard Compliance Standard B25 Does Not Comply Accessibility objective Dwellings 2,5,6,7 that are street facing are not easily accessible for people with limited mobility. Because they are designed with a stairwell entrance. Standard B26 Complies Dwelling entry objective Standard B27 Daylight to new windows objective
Complies
Standard B28 Private open space objective
Complies
Standard B29 Solar access to open space objective
Complies
Standard B30 Storage objective
Complies
Detailed Design – Clause 55.06 Standard Standard B31 Design detail objective Standard B32
Compliance Complies
Complies
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Front fences objective Standard B33 Common property objectives
Complies
Standard B34 Site services objectives
Complies
Other Relevant Strategies and Documents •
Melbourne 2030, update Melbourne at 5 million (DPTLI, 2008)
•
Victorian Integrated Housing Strategy (State Government, 2010)
•
Design Guidelines for higher Density Development (DSC,2004)
•
Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria (Crime Prevention Victoria, and DSE, 2005)
Relevant Incorporated Documents •
Moreland Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 2006
•
Keeping Brunswick’s Heritage
7. Summery of Key Issues The Assessment of the proposal against Clause 55 complies the majority of standards, however it does not comply with five standards.
The proposal of developing 23 dwellings within two triple-story buildings on the land would be consistent with State and Local Policy that promote urban consolidation. There are a number of newly constructed high density dwelling along Tinning Street that have set a prescient of multi-story redevelopments in the area. However, the height (B7) , building permeability (B9) and site coverage (B8) of the proposal do not comply with council regulations, therefore conditions will be need to be set to avert this. The proposed applicant will not materially affect the amenity of adjacent and nearby properties and the neighbourhood character of the area, once the recommendations for the design has been met. Fundamentally, the council wants to encourage the densification of the neighbourhood, naturally there will be a change in
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
character, but with good with design the proposal can add to the character to the street.
The proposal is close to public transport, Sydney Road Activity Centre, activity site, leeway can be given to the provision of visitor parking (B16), and size of parking spaces, which is below council limits. However, the LPFF aims to encourage active and public transportation amongst its residents, therefore conditions will be set to notify proposed residents on the size of car parking spaces.
The internal view objectives (B23), must be respected so residents doe not feel overlooked.
8. Conclusion After consideration, the proposal is approved, but subject to conditions, because the proposal would not materially affect the amenity of adjacent and nearby properties and the neighbourhood character of the area. And the development helps foster the SPFF and LPFF objectives to increase densification.
9. Decision That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. MPS/2014/49to be given under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and having considered all the matters required under Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 decides to Grant a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the provisions of: Clause 32.04 MUZ Section 2 Clause 32.06 Construction and Extension of 2 or more dwellings on a lot Clause 55 Requirements Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Clause 43.02— 2 Building Works Clause 52.06— 3 Car Parking Permit Requirement Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as 74 -80 Tinning Street , for the development in accordance with the endorsed plans, with the application dated 21st February 2014 subject to the following conditions:
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, with conditions. Amended Plans required: 1. Gradation is lowered in buildings height for apartment 8, 9, 22 and 23 to accommodate for the single storey weatherboard house located at 82 Tinning Street, Brunswick. 2. Decrease the site coverage by 4.5% to meet council regulations. 3. Increase the permeability level by 12.6% to meet council regulations. 4. Decrease the internal visual views between apartments 9, 10, 21 and 22 by using of different materials or relocating the balconies. 5. The applicant must notify proposed residents on the size of car parking spaces when they are purchasing the dwellings.
Planner Responsible: ……………………………………………………………….. Signature: …………………………………………………………………………... Date: ……….……………………………………………………………………......
Manager: …………………………………………………………………………… Signature: …………………………………………………………………………... Date: ……….…………………………………………………………………….....
Part 2 What aspects of the Planning Scheme are complementary or contradictory, respectably? Giving reasons and examples, discuss the implications of your findings? The planning scheme aims to provide an “orderly of management of land uses and development” and delivers a framework that is “fair, orderly, economic and sustainable”, it forms the foundational basis through which Victoria’s, and
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Melbourne’s urban development is underpinned (City of Moreland, 2012, p.1). The principle legislation, which provides the framework for the planning process is the Planning and Environmental Act of 1987. This paper will discuss the aspects of the planning schemes that are complementary and contradictory. It will argue that while many aspects of the planning scheme do complement one another, in particular how the overarching State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) guides the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) in directing development at a local level. There are also a number of significant contradictions, between local councils and aspects of Clause 55 that are subjective, which impact Melbourne’s object to becoming a compact, livable city.
Melbourne 2030, SPPF and Moreland City Council’s LPPF are aligned in their aspiration to develop compact, sustainable and vibrant neighbourhood’s. Whilst, the planning scheme does not have the ability to stipulate precisely what best development outcome for each individual site is. The planning scheme through the application of design guidelines, objectives, ResCode provisions, standards for zones and overlays are able to guide the ultimate use and development within the Moreland Local Council Authority. The strategic direction of Melbourne 2030 promotes “Growth across a network of key activity centres” (,Policies 1.1 – 1.3), promoting sustainable transport options (Policy 5.5, 8.7, 8.8), and increasing the densities of established suburbs close to activity centres (Policy 1.3) (Melbourne 2030, 2002, p. 6 -10). The SPPF compliments Melbourne 2030, with similar objectives Activity Centres (Clause 11), Sustainable Development (Clause 15.2), Housing – high densities (Clause 16), and Integrated Transport (Clause 18.01). Moreland City Council’s LPPF accordingly compliments Melbourne 2030, SPPF with the focus on developing Activity Centres and “urban villages” (Clause 21.04-2), through increased residential densities along existing transport corridors. The Design and Development Overlay ensures the new developments respect the existing neighbourhood character. Within Zones, the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) complements the objectives of SPFF and LPPF to achieve mixture of developments, and uses that are close to activity centres and transport. It is evident that the statutory planning structure are complementary to one another.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
The recently published Plan Melbourne, and adjacent government policies complement the existing Melbourne 2030, SPFF, LPPF objectives. Plan Melbourne follows the precedent of Melbourne 2030 by encouraging the development of a compact, sustainable Melbourne with strong local communities; Principle 4 Strong Communities, Principle 5 Environmental Resilience, , Principle 7 Living Locally – “20 minute city”, but also “protecting the suburbs by delivering density at key locations” (Plan Melbourne, 2014, p.18 - 19). The LGA of Moreland and the suburb of Brunswick has been earmarked in Plan Melbourne as a key location to undergo densification through a mixture of medium and high density developments (Plan Melbourne, 2014, p.148). This objective is complemented by adjacent government policy the “Station Precinct Engagement Program” that earmarks the redevelopment of Moreland’s Jewell Train Station “a new station forecourt with public seating, bike storage, lighting open areas and landscaping” (Napthine, 2014). Additionally, the VicTrack owned land surrounding Jewell train station would be sold to developers for high-density mixed-use development, which will complement Plan Melbourne’s objective of consolidating Brunswick. The planning scheme through Melbourne 2030, SPPF, and Moreland City Council LPPF do complement one another, and are effective in promoting development that achieves the set goals of increased density along transport corridors, enabling Melbourne to become a compact, livable city.
A significant contradiction within the planning scheme is the different approaches by councils in increasing densification within existing suburbs. Moreland City Council has embraced a more compact, sustainable form and has encouraged this through Mixed Use Zoning, that by stimulate high density development. In contrast, fellow middle ring LGA, Glen Eira Council is limiting densification as it zoned 80% of it’s locality of having significant neighbourhood character, therefore inhibiting medium or high density developments (ABC News, 2014) . Glen Eira Council LPPF and Major Jamie Hyrams stipulate there is sufficient available land around existing transport nodes to facilitate densification of 20% of the council area, whilst shielding the leafy low-density suburbs from consolidation pressures (ABC News, 2014). This illustrates that the planning scheme can be interpreted differently, and councils can achieve their own objectives within the policies set out in the SPFF. Fundamentally, local political pressures will the type of development objectives set out in a LPPF.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
A major contradiction within the planning scheme is within the Clause 55 ResCode Framework, because they are open to interpretation by different Responsible Authorities, and applications. This paper acknowledges that the frameworks are a critical component of ensuring all aspects of a development are carried out according to the specific guidelines set in Clause 55; ensuring there is a streamlined process for all applications, makes sure high standards are being kept. There a number of clauses within ResCode that is open to interpretation. The nature of Neighbourhood Character is subjective, and can be interpreted differently within a council and between councils. The case of Lamaro v Hume CC (2013), VCAT 957 illustrates the subjective issues of Neighbourhood Character. The permit was not issued for Lamaro’s Two Double Storey Dwellings and One Rear Single Storey development because of “Neighbourhood Character; Amenity Impacts on Adjoining Property” (VCAT , 2013). Whilst the proposal altered aspects within it’s design and achieved the quantitative standards set in Clause 55 of ResCode , the proposal was deemed not fit into the suburban neighbourhood character of Tullamarine. At the interface of development, the subjective nature of “interpretation” of what fits into proper Neighbourhood Character can be perceived as contradictory between what councils, applicants and the local community believe.
Finally, the subjective nature of planning between promoting high density, but respecting existing neighbourhood character is illustrated in the case of 74-80 Tinning Street. Whilst the applicant did comply with all the design criteria, this high-density form of development is critical in helping create a higher density sustainable neighbourhood
in
Brunswick.
Unquestionably,
constructing
high
density
developments will change the nature of Brunswick’s neighbourhood character. That is why development needs to be of a high architectural standard, so the building can add to the areas character. Due to the subjective nature of some aspects of Clause 55 there will be disagreement over the interpretations, but this can not stop development. Fundamentally, this paper agrees with Plan Melbourne, Melbourne 2030 , SPFF and Moreland LPFF that Melbourne needs to construct more diverse, affordable housing close to existing public transport and services if Melbourne is to continue to be a livable city.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
In conclusion this paper has discussed the aspects of the Planning Scheme are complementary or contradictory. Overall the Planning Scheme does help guide Melbourne to becoming a sustainable, livable city, but inconstancies between councils LPPF do hinder this process.
Reference List: ABC News. (2014). “Can Melbourne Cope with 7 Million or more people?”. 7. 30 Report Victoria. ABC News Online. Aired 23rd May 2014. Viewed 24th May 2014. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-23/can-melbourne-cope-with-7-million-andmore-/5475094>. Coote, M, (2003). “The Melbourne Book , A history of now”. Hardie Grant Books, Melbourne. Department of Planning and Community Development A. (2014). “Map Moreland Planning Scheme- Local Provision. 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014.< http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/174950/moreland 14zn.pdf>. Department of Planning and Community Development B. (2014). “Map Moreland Planning Scheme- Environmental Audit.”. 2014. Viewed 26th April 2014.< http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/174945/moreland 14eao.pdf>. Department of Planning and Community Development C. (2014). “Map Moreland Planning Scheme- Heritage Overlay” . 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014 <http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/174946/morelan d14ho.pdf>. Department of Planning and Community Development D. (2014). “Map Moreland Planning Scheme- Public Acquisition Overlay” . 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014. < http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/174948/moreland 14pao.pdf>. Donaghys Sarlon Industries PTY Ltd. (2014). Personal Communication. Phone Conversation 9th May 2014. Hastings, E (2014). “Premier Denis Napthine says developing near Jewell Railway Station will improve safety”. Herald Sun Online. Published 19th March 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014. < http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/north/premier-denis-napthinesays-developing-land-near-jewell-railway-station-will-improve-safety/story-fnglenug1226859049594> Keating, J. (2005).“Brunswick”, in Brown-May, A, Swain, S. “The Encyclopedia of Melbourne”, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 75-77.
Hugh Utting 389 145
ABPL 901030
Melbounre 2030. (2003). “Melbourne 2030 Key Objectives”. Department of Infrastrucure. Melbourne. Viewed 20th May 2014. <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/42772/2030_complete.pdf> Moreland City Council. (2014). “Suburb Profile: Brunswick”. Published 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014. < http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/aboutmoreland/demographics-statistics/suburb-profiles/brunswick.html>. Moreland City Council. (2012). “ Moreland A Guide For Applicants”. Moreland City Council. Melbourne. Pp. 1 -5. Moreland Planning Scheme. (2014). “Planning Scheme”. Moreland City Council. Melbourne. Pp. 1 -836. Mulder, T (2013). “Media Release: Jewell Station Precinct one step closer to being Brunswick’s gem”. Victorian Premiers Office. Published 20th November 2013. Viewed 20th May 2014. <http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/images/stories/documents/mediareleases/2013/Nove mber/131120_Mulder__Jewell_Station_Precinct_one_step_closer_to_being_Brunswi cks_gem.pdf .> Napthine, D (2014). “Media Release: Station Precinct Engagement Program to deliver $1 billion investment”. Victorian Premiers Office. 18th March 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014. Pp. 1-2. Plan Melbourne. (2014). “Plan Melbourne: Metropolitan Strategy”. Victorian Government Melbourne. Melbourne. Pp. 1- 221 VCAT. (2013). Lamaro v Hume CC & Anor (includes Summary)(Red Dot) [2013] VCAT 957 (13 June 2013). Viewed 20th May 2014. <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2013/957.html? stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Lamaro%20v%20Hume%20CC>. Vic Track. (2014). “Vic Track Media Statement: Jewell Street Investigation Area”. Published 2014. Viewed 20th May 2014. < https://www.victrack.com.au/~/media/65ef7cc9b734463c913b48f72ef798d1.pdf>.