Bendigo and District Environment Council Inc (BDEC) is a non-profit organisation whose main interest is the conservation of the natural environment and Australia’s progress towards the achievement of ecological sustainability.
"A society is defined not only by what it creates, but by what it refuses to destroy."
— John Sawhill, former president and CEO of The Nature conservancy.
Statutory planning Systems Reform
Department of Planning and Community Development
GPO Box 2392
Melbourne 3001
Date: 07/04/09

Re: New residential zones for Victoria, Consultation Draft
It would appear that the Consultation Draft is anti the natural environment, pro developer and Melbourne centric. The end result of the failure to adopt many of the proposals offered that would protect and enhance the biodiversity values within the urban landscape will be to eliminate most if not all of the natural environment from such areas. As a result the Draft if implemented will produce a significant reduction in the liveability and the environmental sustainability of Victoria.
This will suit developers but not the citizens of Victoria.
• Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them.
~Bill Vaughn
The Government should accept the need for change that brings greater protection to the natural environment within residential/urban not just change that suits the needs of developers.
The reasons for our disgust at the tardy performance of the government within this discussion paper are:
• An Urban Conservation Zone needs to be introduced for the protection of vegetation/biodiversity in urban areas. After all a natural environment protection zone now exists within rural. Such a zone is not being proposed within the Draft!
• The proposed new zones are development focused without adequate emphasis on the protection of the natural environment. ResCode needs to be reviewed so that adequate protections for biodiversity exist within it. This has not happened within the Draft!
• Greenfields development within regional Victoria requires a new zone whose purpose is the development of new residential areas within rural and regional areas. It is important that such a zone is created but what is being proposed, with the three zones, is nothing more than a better means of implementing Melbourne 2030 and will not serve the needs of country Victoria at all.
The belief that vegetation and its accompanying fauna can be shifted without loss if it is in the road of development to somewhere that will not be a bother to the needs of developers, in other words out of the road, is just a belief and does not stand up to scrutiny. This always leads to a net loss even though the Government has been changing the criteria so that a net gain can appear to be achieved. Pure Orwell!
The superior man seeks what is right; the inferior one, what is profitable."
— Confucius
We are now being presented with Precinct Plans as though they will be able to satisfy the needs of developers and the natural environment. But of course they are just business as usual, dressed up a bit to give the appearance that it will protect the natural environment, just because the Minister will not have a bar of the idea of a Conservation Zone for the urban areas.
What is actually happening is that the Government is dressing up the process of virtual vegetation protection to mind its own back so that it will not be blamed for the inevitable loss of biodiversity.
Shifting biodiversity to allow for residential development creates a net loss
The failure of Native: vegetation management – A framework for action:
Victorias’ ‘Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action’ (VPP) 52.17, deals with indigenous vegetation. If the Frameworks offset provision is used for issuing permits to clear native vegetation, a net loss will inevitably occur. The Framework does not have within its structure the ability to produce a net gain. Just saying that there will be a net gain does not make it so.
The primary goal for native vegetation management within Victoria of the Framework for Action is the achievement of “A reversal, across the entire landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to a Net Gain”. Even with an incredibly narrow and unrealistic interpretation of net gain, the ‘Native Vegetation Net Gain Accounting first approximation report (April 2008)’found, that there has been a significant loss of indigenous vegetation across the state. After nearly six years the primary goal has not been met! A ‘Net Loss’ across Victoria of vegetation and habitat is what has actually happened! The report found that there had been a net loss of 4,000 HHa/yr. (Habitat Hectares per year)
We do understand that all forms of government, all government agencies, VCAT and even the independent panels within Victoria are compelled to comply with the planning regulations. Nevertheless, just because a government creates laws it does not mean that they are in anyway correct or that we have to agree with them.
The best biodiversity and landscape outcome is obtained by avoiding vegetation destruction.
It has become a habit within Victoria to allow vegetation in areas that are targeted for development to be cleared and traded out into chosen places where developers with large cheque books can buy and protect vegetation that will not damage their development plans. This is what Bush Broker helps to facilitate.
Even though the Framework has been a failure, everyone has had to comply with it, but we do not have to accept the stupidity of it. In fact the Framework’s ‘net gain’ term for the administration of native vegetation controls has become a convenient facade for the governments to hide behind when they allow vegetation to be cleared, thus protecting themselves from criticism.
Whenever the failed Victorian Planning Provisions inevitably allow vegetation to be cleared there are two ways the Framework provides for a replacement, so called ‘Offsets’.
1. An amount of existent vegetation is protected in another location to replace the vegetation destroyed.
As the vegetation already exists it is not a replacement and therefore not a ‘Net Gain’, it is in fact been a ‘Net Loss’. The cases where this has been used are where the loss of indigenous vegetation from one area has had to fund the saving of indigenous vegetation in other areas. In other words the government has so little regard for the natural environment that it will not fund the saving of such areas, but instead it will allow large areas to be effectively sold and cleared to fund the saving of other areas.
2. Planting out bare ground to replace an area allowed to be cleared.
This fails completely because biodiversity cannot be traded without a loss in value therefore leading to a ‘Net loss’.
Professor Hugh Possingham from the University of Queensland’s Centre for Ecology stated on the ABC’s Saturday Breakfast with Geraldine Doogue, 17Dec 2005: that “Biodiversity is not fungible, it is not possible to trade it from one place to another and hope to retain its value; biodiversity is dependent on where it is in the landscape (place) and when it is (time)”. Biodiversity is space and time dependant.
He also said that “My main concern is really about the fact that if you don’t involve reconstruction of habitat, if you just say ‘I’m going to conserve this 1,000 hectares if you let me destroy that 1,000’; in the end that just means we destroy half of everything, which isn’t at all acceptable. If you were going to turn 1,000 hectares into bare ground, or urban development, then you should have to turn bare ground into 1,000 hectares of native vegetation. Show me somebody’s who’s done that; show me somebody that reconstructed an ecosystem from scratch. Nobody’s done that. Ever! But terrestrial ecosystems, we’re not even sure we can reconstruct. If they are reconstructable, then that could take 500 years. So how are you going to do that?” it is true that “some things are mobile, some things will recolonise, but we already know many things will not recolonise places. That’s part of the problem; most of our threatened species are particularly poor dispersives.” He went on to say “The reptiles, the small mammals, we know the ones that are most threatened have poor dispersal capacity, and so they may not get there at all. So I think that is a fantasy, there is no record in Australia at the moment, of somebody reconstructing an ecosystem from scratch”.
‘Hence the Framework’s offsets are scientifically unsound’.
The policy of allowing vegetation to be destroyed and traded out is a smokescreen solution that has now become a part of the problem.
The failure of Bush Broker:
Market-based approaches may deliver financial rewards to business, but it is not a given that they will produce an improved natural environment.
“Bush Broker is a new scheme in which landholders can enter into agreements to permanently manage and maintain native vegetation on their property. To qualify for this scheme, vegetation must be permanently set aside through a covenant with the Trust for Nature or under an agreement under legislation. Native vegetation credits can then be registered then traded to third parties to offset proposed clearing at a separate site” (Whose Rights and Who’s Right? Valuing Ecosystem Services: International Landcare Conference, 8-11 October 2006). This leads to a net loss as the area that generated the credits already exists, the cleared area that uses the credits disappears, and therefore Bush Broker is a way of forcing the natural environment to sell a part of itself to save some other area, as has been described previously.
Bush Broker works in conjunction with the Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for action, a regulation that is detrimental to the natural environment. Bush Broker works against the primary goal of the Framework by concentrating vegetation within pockets (extent) rather than a reversal across the entire landscape. Biodiversity works at a landscape scale. Biodiversity concentrated into localised pockets leads to extinctions because species need to be present across and be able move through the whole landscape, for example, recolonising areas where local extinctions have occurred. Also Bush Broker is not required to match the vegetation or habitat that has been destroyed with like for like, it is a system of tradable environmental credits. Such credits may work with simple systems such as carbon but the natural systems are made up of a multitude of species that are connected in complex relationships that cannot be broken down to a simple unit of credit, then traded and reconstituted at a new location. As Professor Possingham has said, you cannot trade biodiversity across time and space and retain value.
Bush Broker is therefore playing its part in reducing the quantity and ecosystem quality and also the spatial aspect of biodiversity, simplifying the abundance of the natural world by reducing diversity. Even though Bush Broker is a process that fails the natural environment it is looked upon with favour because it fits into the economic belief systems that dominate present thinking.
The failure of Precinct Plans:
The Precinct Plans contain the ability to over throw vegetation protection by the application of permits to do so. Nothing more needs to be said, they will simply end up in VCAT and it will be business as usual.
It is wrong to assume that conservation will allow the biodiversity found within the City of Greater Bendigo to go peacefully into that dark night of extinction. It will not!
There is a price to pay for all things and the wonton disregard for the inevitable destruction of the natural environment brought on by the Minister’s indifference or perhaps ignorance, exhibited within the three zone proposal, to needs of biodiversity will make sure that we inform the citizens of Bendigo that it is the Government and specifically the Minister who is to blame.
We wish to present our submission to the Advisory Committee process.
D. Stuart Fraser
Convenor

Malvern East Group
MEG Supports PLANNING BACKLASH
C/- 14 Chanak Street,
Malvern East Vic 3145
Phone/Fax 9572 3205
Email meg@chezsamuel.com
Web http://www.chezsamuel.com/meghome.php

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
It is with a disturbing degree of cynicism that we read the latest proposal regarding further development of Melbourne through the imposition of New Residential Zones. We are further disturbed to note that you consider that members of the public "were unclear about what changes would mean for their neighbourhood." Let us assure you that members of MEG and the groups in the Planning Backlash Network are acutely aware of the implications of NRZ...and we deplore them.

We applaud the decision to retain third party notice , objection and appeal rights in all zones (even though the developers do not want them) but note that this will mean absolutely nothing in the light of the Government's stated intention of increasing the Minister's 'call in' powers, of increasing his interference in VCAT cases and the proposed introduction of DACs. It would seem that our rights are to be given to us with the right hand and taken away with the left. We further note that Councils will have the power to exclude these rights.

We also applaud the sentiments expressed in the "improved features" in which it is stated that the Government will "allow capacity to specify preferred neighbourhood character and preferred design outcomes." However, this is negated by the fact that Stonnington's Housing Strategy & Neighbourhood Character Study approved by Council in Dec. in 2006 and lodged with the Department in January 2007 still gathers dust somewhere in DPCD. Council is unable to get permission to even exhibit the document. The overt deceit in the statement that we will be allowed to specify "preferred neighbourhood character" when, clearly, we in Stonnington are not allowed to do just that beggars belief.

PROCESS
The "devil in the detail" in the process lies in the term "transition." The underlying assumption for Stonnington and similar municipalities is that Res.1 and Res.3 zones will be arbitrarily placed in the Incremental Change Zone during transition...which could last forever. Selected overlays would be placed in the Limited Change Zone. However "existing overlays may be removed if they include development requirements that can be included in one of the new zones. 'Development requirements' occur at Activity Centres where public transport (unreliable as it is) is available. We can assume from this that most of Stonnington will be littered with the ubiquitous 3 storey plus residential developments with an increased commercial element. It follows that the 'neighbourhood character' can neither be protected nor respected. The intrinsic qualities of the neighbourhood will be altered forever.
We cite an example of what could occur in Malvern East as a result of this. The Gascoigne Estate Heritage Overlay is bounded by the Caulfield Major Activity Centre which incorporates the Caulfield Station Transport Hub and Monash/Caulfield, the Neighbourhood Activity Centres of Waverley Rd., the Burke /Wattletree Rd. intersection and the Wattletree/Tooronga Rd. intersection. We can only assume from your statement that the Gascoigne Estate will be a target for development for up to 3 storeys plus...and we could say the same thing about any of the overlays in Stonnington.

CONSULTATION
We note that it is only previous submitters who have been notified and provided with copies of this slightly modified proposal. This is reprehensible.
This has the potential to impact on all Victorians and there has been no attempt to engage communities in information and consultation sessions. We assume that NRZ is to be arbitrarily foisted upon residents as M2030 was. It is a further example of the autocratic behaviour of this Government and its bureaucrats. (We are aware of the Minister recently overruling a vote of Parliament!)
As neither the Government nor Councils chose to inform the community of NRZ, Residents' Groups such as MEG felt obliged with our very limited resources to attempt to fill the gap. MEG reaches only some people in Malvern East and a minimal number in the rest of Stonnington.

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ZONE
As this zone identifies where housing growth is appropriate...i.e. within walking distance of shopping and transport all of Stonnington, except for a small area in Toorak can be included. This is an appalling prospect and an indictment of the authors of NRZ. It is an "anything goes," "let her rip" zone.

We note on P.4 of 6 the exemption from notice an review, no permit required to construct or carry out works normal to a dwelling...what is normal?
For developments of 4 or more storeys the reference is 'Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development...guidelines which are totally meaningless as no standards are set, nothing is mandatory, amenity issues are not considered let alone prescribed. They are what this zone already is ...an "anything goes," "let her rip" area and an example of this is the Forrest Hill Precinct in Stonnington...Docklands in the suburbs.

A schedule to this zone may specify that it is exempt from notice and review. Why?

INCREMENTAL CHANGE ZONE
We have already pointed out the inaccuracy in the statement that Councils are able to identify particular characteristics of neighbourhood and have housing which respects the existing character. Stonnington is not allowed to do this.
Respectful additional housing is to go into this zone. A recent VCAT decision defined 'respect neighbour hood character':-
"it requires a building to be a comfortable companion to the other assets that are characteristic of the area whether they be buildings or vegetation. Sometimes this can be achieved by elements which 'complement'
some of the features in the area. Some of these elements are self-evident...style, height, setbacks, materials, colours, etc., while others are more intangible such as rhythm, spacing, recessive elements and public realm."

In this zone, development will be limited to 3 storeys but the paper then goes on to say that "requirements of Cl.55 must be met but not if the application is 4 storeys or more." It follows that the Incremental Change Zone can have developments that are the same as those allowed in the Substantial Change Zone. It is noted that Council may schedule an exemption from notice and review as in the Substantial Change Zone. We wonder if this entire paper was written to confuse the reader and what it indeed means is that any sort of development can go anywhere.

The meeting of the standards of Cl.55 is a nonsense. These so-call standards are discretionary and are varied at whim. Applicants consistently exceed the standards. For instance, we could cite any number of examples of applications exceeding the height limit set in Standard B13 of Cl.55 and if Council does not allow it VCAT invariably does.

LIMITED CHANGE ZONE
Even in this zone you state a maximum heights of 9m....3 storeys. What do is meant by 'appropriate locations" where Council can set a lower limit? The implication is that even in the overlay areas there has to be medium density housing up to 3 storeys and a further implication is that 4 storey plus can be permitted.
There is to be no less than 2 dwellings per lot. Does this mean there must be more?
......................................................

FURTHER ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED

SPECIFIED MAXIMUM HEIGHTS
In practice maximum heights are automatically seen by applicants as "target heights." This is to be avoided. The aim of any planner or Government should be to protect the liveability of its citizens. Setting heights to 3 storeys (plus) in areas which are primarily 1 and 2 storey compromises liveability.

USES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT
In none of the zones is a permit required for Residential Aged Care Facilities nor for a Bed & Breakfast for up to 6 people in an existing building. Both of these uses have the potential to impact heavily on existing residential areas and yet they can be established virtually by stealth with owners having the knowledge that they do not have to consider anything or anyone nor do they have to provide adequate facilities. We are aware of a number of municipalities which have this same situation with regard to 'student accommodation by stealth.' Enforcement procedures are difficult in that Councils simply do not have the staff nor the funding to ensure compliance with existing regulations.

LOSS OF THE GREEN CANOPY
As moonscaping of sites is a common occurrence now, we dread to contemplate what will inevitably happen under this proposal. Government fails to recognise that the green canopy provides the lungs of the city. If we are to repeat Docklands throughout the suburbs Melbournians will not be able to breathe. The tree canopy is an asset which must be protected. There is nothing in your proposal which pays it the slightest attention.

SUSTAINABILITY
The opportunity to incorporate sustainable building and design practices into the consideration of residential development has been omitted. Another grave omission!

INFRASTRUCTURE
The proposal does not take into account the ageing infrastructure in the older municipalities. There is no information regarding Government action re the replacement of drains and sewers, let alone improving the public transport system. The system was not designed for to accommodate higher density development. It cannot cope adequately with the present population so it stands no chance of coping with all the people which you intend to cram into the established suburbs. Existing problems with all of our infrastructure can only be exacerbated by NRZ. The Government and its bureaucracy are in denial when this is not acknowledged in a document which, literally, proposes to worsen the situation.

SOLUTION
A Task Force has been formed to carry out consultation with regional communities. We hope that their work is not confined to Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat but extends to Warrnambool, Portland, Horsham, Mildura, Traralgon, Shepparton and any number of other smaller towns which could sustain an increase in population. We are aware of an Upper House Committee which has been formed to inquire into Regional Development.

Melbourne does not have to be the 'primary accommodation' for new housing .
It is in strategically-directed, incentive-driven decentralisation that the answer to Victoria's population increase lies not in the ever-expanding Urban Growth Boundary of Melbourne. A lesson can be learned from Ireland and the pattern of population distribution which has been developed there is one that this Government could pursue if it could just 'think creatively.' "Ireland offers a model for taking pressure off Melbourne while still allowing the state to develop and population to rise."

Please find attached an article by the Planning Barrister David O'Brien...Age Sept.16/08..."REGIONAL CITIES MUST BE KEY TO VICTORIA'S FUTURE." ( I can provide you with a hard copy of this if the scanned article is illegible.)

CONCLUSION
MEG believes that the New Residential Zones proposal sounds the 'death knell' for the leafy suburbs which help Melbourne to survive. These suburbs contribute so much, not only to those who live in them, but to the general population. The vegetation so many of us work hard to sustain helps to absorb the pollution the city creates.
People who moonscape sites replacing trees and shrubs with endless buildings and those who encourage them to do so steal amenity from the rest of us. This proposal is much more than a development proposal. Its essence lies in what it will destroy rather than anything positive that it will promote.

We believe it is a gift for the 'urban vandal.'

Ann Reid (MEG Convenor)

The Nillumbik Rate Payers Association (NRA) opposes the Consultation Draft New Residential Zones and requests they be abandoned.

Statutory Planning System Reforms,
Department of Planning and Community Development,
GPO Box 2392,
Melbourne. Vic. 3001.

20th. March 2009

SUBMISSION TO CONSULTATION DRAFT NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
Due 9th. April, 2009

Once again the community is presented with a ‘fait accompli’ – a done deal!
History will judge and hold this State Government responsible for removal of our democratic rights and what amounts to the end of our ‘liveable city.’

The Nillumbik Ratepayers Association (NRA) opposes the Consultation Draft New Residential Zones and requests they be abandoned.

Despite the State Government constantly reminding us it operates an open transparent system of government with community consultation it continually denies materially affected owners and residents natural justice and procedural fairness.

The State Government claims to ‘Retain third party notice, objection and appeal provisions in all zones’ (see New Zone Features) yet throughout the provisions for each of the zones there are removals or restrictions placed on this course of action.
The proposed New Zones will remove or restrict the democratic right to object and the right to appeal at VCAT.

Residents have been denied the legal requirement to be formally notified of changes which will materially affect them. For example, residents who may own land in a current Residential 1 Zone may find themselves in the proposed Incremental Change Zone where, if there is an overlay, eg: Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Heritage Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay or Vegetation Protection Overlay it ‘…limits the opportunity for additional housing.’

Once again, just like the disastrous Melbourne 2030 plan, the proposed New Residential Zones will be signed off with the stroke of a pen without the basic groundwork having been undertaken and will handball responsibility and cost to Councils (ie: ratepayers) to determine appropriate areas for the mandated new zones.

In Nillumbik, the proposed new zones will increase housing densities in Eltham and Diamond Creek, thereby increasing population density in a high bushfire prone area.

The fire risk will be significantly increased by Nillumbik Council’s planting requirements and local and State Government policies. It is vital in this shire that the severe restrictions on vegetation removal be reviewed and new provisions implemented to enable the ability to remove vegetation and mandatory planting of indigenous to the shire vegetation around and over houses to protect life and property without a permit. David Packham said in his report ‘Bushfire Threat to Nillumbik Shire’ 2003, ‘Nillumbik is truly living on borrowed time.’ Rod Incoll in his report ‘An Overview of Fire Hazard and Vegetation Controls in the Shire of Nillumbik’ said
‘…fuel quantity and arrangement are the only factors affecting fire behaviour that can be manipulated,’

No doubt community submissions will be ignored and the New Zones will be implemented but the State and Local Governments have a duty of care to fully address fire safety ahead of other considerations in fire prone areas. Where is this issue considered in the New Residential Zones (NRZ) particularly in this recognised fire prone shire and especially after 210 deaths, many in residential areas?

VPP’s and Local Policies must be changed to ensure protection of life and property is placed ahead of vegetation protection before the proposed new zones are implemented

There is no consideration to the fire threat to this shire in the NRZ’s. Without State Government consideration to the fire issue in this recognised bushfire prone shire these NRZ’s can only add to the losses when the inevitable fire engulfs the residential areas of Nillumbik.

• We submit the two expert reports commissioned by the NRA in 2003 by Mr. David Packham ‘Bushfire Threat to Nillumbik Shire’ and Mr. Rod Incoll ‘An Overview of Fire Hazard and Vegetation Controls in the Shire of Nillumbik’ for Amendment C12 (Neighbourhood Character) as part of this submission.

We submit that there should be no new residential zones considered for Nillumbik at least until after the outcome and the recommendations of the Royal Commission’s final report into the recent bushfires (7th. February, 2009) have been fully considered.

Yours faithfully,

Brian Murray.
Director.
 

SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STATUTORY PLANNING SYSTEMS REFORM
ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES PROPOSALS.

Boroondara Residents’ Action Group (BRAG)
PO Box 1034, Camberwell 3124
Email info@brag.asn.au

BRAG is a community organization
Registered under the Associations Act 1981 No. A0054624J
Website www.brag.asn.au

BRAG will be pleased to present to the Advisory Committee.

Introduction

This submission is from the Boroondara Residents’ Action Group (BRAG) which was formed in 2004 after a large public meeting of residents protesting about a particular unacceptable government development proposal.

BRAG has since broadened its activities in general planning issues and has an increasing number of members, currently over 500, mainly drawn from residents in the Camberwell/Hawthorn districts but with many from surrounding districts within Boroondara, which makes BRAG one of the more significant community groups in Victoria.

BRAG also actively supports PLANNING BACKLASH, a coalition of over 150 community groups from across Melbourne including regional areas of Victoria.

BRAG’s mission is to protect what the residents love about their neighbourhood and is encouraged by the residents of Boroondara, whether they be members or not, to speak on their behalf on planning issues.

RESIDENT CONCERNS

The Boroondara resident population is alarmed at the increasing levels of government and departmental interventions on planning matters in our area, particularly through the captive VCAT process and exemplified by the more recent establishment of a government appointed Development Assessment Committee (DAC) to take over planning decisions in Camberwell and in four other centres, then in every principal activity centre.

They see the New Residential Zone proposals as being just another tool for the government to control development and increase density in our suburbs and country towns.

The public relations campaign about “building partnerships with local governments, stakeholders and residents is regularly contradicted by taking the decision making outside the ambit of these stakeholders back into the governmen’s arena via the establishment of panels and committees

The Planning Minister recently demonstrated increasing intolerance
towards allowing local government make decisions according to their planning framework when calling in a totally unacceptable development in Stonnington. The Minister announced that he “was not going to let councils get in my way anymore”.

A further example demonstrating the Planning Minister’s lack of engagement in negotiating an outcome is the last minute intervention at VCAT, through Senior Council Michael Wright, virtually demanding that VCAT approve a particularly unpopular and totally unacceptable development of 15 storeys at Camberwell Junction saying that “this development would stand as a benchmark for future development in Camberwell”, despite the community’s massive number of objections.

The resultant community anger is justified. Again we say this sort of action does nothing towards “building partnerships”.

Such examples lead us to request that the Minister prepare a draft policy outlining “partnership” protocols which bind all parties to a negotiated process providing a satisfactory win-win outcome.

It is with a great deal of concern that BRAG has been forced to inform our local community about the New Residential Zones proposals as there has been almost no publicity or distribution of information to the resident stakeholders by the government on this issue.

Until BRAG alerted the Boroondara community to the new zone proposals, the general population was largely unaware which is an indictment on the responsible government agencies.

A further matter of real concern is that, in the transition period between the announcement of these proposals and the point at which Councils receive acceptance of their scheduling of neighbourhood character and design principals. The development industry will use the guidelines in the proposals to argue their case before VCAT during this transition period which may be a matter of months or even years if previous Ministerial acceptance of similar matters is any guide.

Much unacceptable development could get through in this period.

THE NEW ZONES

• In the Substantial Change Zone (SCZ) the various information sheets which were available, if anyone knew to get one, described the SCZ variously as “delivering housing at higher densities” then “medium to higher density” and in another place as “a mix of housing types”. This is just confusing marketing.
The reality is it will deliver four or more storeys, (13.5 metres
max. height unless otherwise specified by council) possibly
boundary to boundary, with no limit to the number of dwellings
and Council can schedule exemptions for notice and review.

The residents are not prepared to accept this increased development densification.

• The Incremental Change Zone (ICZ)is not much better except that it will deliver three storey development( 9 metres max. height, unless otherwise specified by council) with no limit to number of dwellings on the block.
The residents see that this densification will dramatically
re-define their understanding of suburban lifestyle and will
result in multi-storey complexes where there were once single
dwellings.

The residents will not accept this degree of change.

• The Limited Change Zone is not quite so robust but will still deliver three storey buildings ( 9 metres max, lower if otherwise specified by council with possibly two on one block or as specified by council). Again, unacceptable.

The residents say that three, four or more storeys all over the municipality is not the answer and they are not prepared to roll over and accept these changes without a fight.

The government statements about delivering certainty in planning applies mainly to the development industry and is another example of the government’s PR spin.

The real certainty is that these unacceptable densities will ruin our suburbs, the resultant coverage on residential blocks will denude the suburbs of foliage and trees, which are the lungs of our city.

The overcrowding will cause a massive rise in carbon emissions and add to our water, power, public transport, traffic and parking problems as well as overloading our general infrastructure.

Tree depletion

There are significant pressures already on retaining canopy trees in Boroondara due to the amount of development that has already taken place.

A contributing factor is the lack of a political or economic framework to recognize the tree canopy as an asset. It has been estimated, using data obtained on the removal of significant canopy trees from Boroondara Council, that some 22,200 canopy and other trees will be removed over the period from 2006/7 to 2010/11. Much of the mature tree stock is on private property which makes these trees very susceptible, owing to the policy of block clearing by developers prior to building, exacerbated by the strong return on investment making Boroondara a prime area for the developers.

There are very few vegetation overlays in this municipality and even those do not protect a site from over-development, particularly at VCAT.

Infrastructure.
As an example of the infrastructure problem in Camberwell, Yarra Water has stated in writing that the main sewer trunk line to the west of Burke Road is at capacity and there are no plans to upgrade within the next ten years.

This is not an isolated problem, sewerage lines throughout the city of Melbourne are nearing capacity or are in need of massive repairs and/or upgrading.

Public transport problems increase every day, road traffic is chaotic, we are short of water and power, our hospitals are overwhelmed, our police force is under increasing pressure and all forms of our infrastructure are underperforming.

To put in place a plan to load the suburbs with more density on less land is counterproductive and will only exacerbate existing problems.

It appears that the government is in denial about facing up to the implications of its planning policies and strategies.

Proposed solution

If the federal and state governments are determined to continue
their policies aimed at increasing immigration and the state government continues to push for increased migration to Victoria from other states, then the solution to population growth is not to cram the newcomers into apartment and high-rise accommodation in the suburbs. The solution is in regionalization or better still, in planning now to build another city in this state to take up the growth.

We acknowledge regionalization and building a new city are long term solutions but the time to start real planning for the future is right now. Melbourne 2030 (and its renamed Melbourne@5million) has failed and these feeble attempts to try and prop it up via NRZ’s. DAC’s, the captive VCAT process and giving the Planning Minister greater powers to over-ride the democratic processes, will not provide an adequate response and enduring solution.

Cramming newcomers to this State into existing suburbs is not an acceptable solution to population growth. It is a lazy, easy, short term solution for the government planners.

The proper short term solution is to cut back on immigration and stop encouraging interstate migration until sufficient new and adequate infrastructure upgrades have been well and truly established to allow development of a sensible and properly planned
population growth strategy.

Final Comment

The current Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne@5million planning policies plus the DAC and NRZ policies are riddled with shortcomings which are exacerbated through the increasing number of undemocratic Ministerial controls.

Accordingly, they must not be supported by the Advisory Committee.

We accept that Councils want more certainty, and clear guidelines in planning but we have been informed by responsible councils that they consider these stop gap proposals are not the answer.

The residents of Boroondara demand that any decisions on the NRZ’s
are deferred until all resident stakeholders have been properly informed of the proposals , explaining the devil that is inherent in the detail contained within the proposals as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternate options.

We further demand that the residents be properly consulted with their collective views being given proper weight and consideration before any changes are made.

J. Roach,
President,
BRAG. 31st March 2009.

• SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ZONE
• The name says it all, open slather, free range for development, Substantial Change. Money for jam for all developers. NSW style development. Anything goes. Let it rip!! You bewdy!! Towers, Towers, Towers etc. You know what it means. This is where we stuff the 1000 new residents who come to Victoria each week to live, if we can, and some in the other zones too. In 5-10 years this Zone wont be the same. Substantial means just that, Substantial Change. No further explanation needed or required.

• INCREMENTAL CHANGE ZONE

• The information sheet (bottom of cover page) dated February 2009 states “The Incremental Change Zone allows for a variety of housing types including medium density housing provided that it respects the character of the neighbourhood”

• However, upon reading the description of the Incremental Change Zone it states: “Purpose. To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households”.

• NOTE: Information sheet says Zone is to provide “medium density”, yet in the Zone description the word medium density suddenly becomes “range of densities”. Medium density is not mentioned in the description of the Incremental Change Zone at all.

• Question: What is a range of densities? Is that like free-range eggs, big ones and small ones?

• Subdivision of Land
• Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application to subdivide land is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any Subdivision). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

• Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
• Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application for construction and extension is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any construction and extension). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT).

• LIMITED CHANGE ZONE

• Purpose: To ensure residential development protects the neighbourhood character of the area.

• Subdivision of Land
• Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application to subdivide land is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any Subdivision). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

• Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
• Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application for construction and extension is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any construction and extension). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

• BOTTOM LINE:
• The Brumby Government is attempting to take away property rights in all three proposed Zone changes, which home owners have had for many years. These rights include, the right to be notified of an Application, the right to object to a development, and where necessary, seek a review of the decision made by the Council at VCAT. In these three Zone proposals, each homeowner is being done over by the politicians. There is no Government mandate for this style of change which was never mentioned at the last state election by the Bracks now Brumby Government.

• We employ the politicians. We are their masters not the other way round. Kick butt!! Do you know who is your State member of the Legislative Assembly and the other lot in the Legislative Council. (Look under Parliament in the Business White Pages) or Google: Victorian Parliament.

• It’s your property. Don’t leave it up to someone else. Express your concern to your employee the politician! Do something now. Defend your property rights whilst you still have them .

• Soon it may be too late other than to say “their goes the neighbourhood”. Now is the time for all Good Men and Women to lay siege to their State Member of Parliament whatever their political persuasion maybe and defend the home-owners piece of paradise. The game is not over yet. We must all stand shoulder to shoulder like any Victorians and fight this proposal which will change our lives forever. Bad public policy is just that, Bad. These proposed changes are designed to appease the usual suspects, the Property Council of Australia, the Master Builders of Victoria, the Housing industry Association and the Institute of Public Affairs. Will you willingly relegate your property rights to these vested interests? Will you sit by whilst the above-named culprits receive a leg-up and financial windfall at your cost. It's time to attack the Brumby Government with all our fortitude and get rid of these new Zones.

Allan Harris
cremorne3121@yahoo.com.au

1. This entire concept is fatally flawed in four basic respects:-
• It totally ignores the KNOWN preferences of the people of Victoria and, instead, panders to the interests of the Development lobby and the preferences of bureaucrats, which is always to slot people into convenient categories because that makes their own life so much easier.
• The emphasis on smaller and smaller housing lots, for no good reason, is not only contrary to people’s preferences but will cause unnecessary stress on families, leading to health problems, marriage breakdowns and an increase in juvenile delinquency.
• It fails even to consider the REAL reasons why Melbourne is becoming clogged with traffic, let alone suggest a radical solution – which is urgently needed.
• There is no appreciation that Australia, as a country, and even Victoria, as a state, has ample space for a relatively small population so there is no possible justification for compressing people’s living space into smaller and smaller house lots which will only create slums and ghettos for the future. While it may well cost more, in the short term, to provide adequate infrastructure for larger house lots, this will be offset by improved health and marital stability because of lower stress levels.

2. In June 2005, the City of Casey Council produced a document, in conjunction with Maxine Cooper & Associates and SGS Planning & Economics, entitled ‘Casey Housing Strategy’ and this document will certainly be reflected in the public’s attitude in other municipalities – when the politicians and bureaucrats develop the intestinal fortitude to ask them! This Strategy document should be required reading for every individual involved in planning for Melbourne’s future. The document in question includes the following findings:-
“Community Preferences
All research to date in Casey emphasizes the importance the community attaches to the value of a suburban block, that is a detached dwelling with a front yard and a back yard.
In particular the research documented in the Community Issue Paper emphasizes the community’s desire to have large lots available as part of the housing mix, and the research for the Neighbourhood Character Policy re-affirms that the form of the city generally expresses these suburban values.
The Casey research shows that housing preferences are complex and sometimes localized and these preferences change both as community values change as well as when the demographics of the community change. Some of the key preferences identified to date are as follows:
? The desire for larger houses.
? A preference for 3-4 bedroom houses, right across the family type and age spectrums.
? A desire for the availability of larger blocks to upgrade to.
? Backyards are important.
? The suburban block is important as it provides a level of control to the family that is not available in their wider, more complex and ever changing world, that is the house provides privacy, a safe area for the kids in the backyard, a place for large dogs.
? It is seen that smaller lots reduce this level of control over the family environment, one comment for example “I don’t want to hear the neighbours flush their toilet.”.”

“Housing Choice”
The ability for residents to trade up in the southern parts of Casey, is a choice that is difficult for the community at present. The ability to deliver such choice locally is seen as a fundamental objective.
And, later
? A range of lot sizes, in new areas.
? Large lot suburban housing (from 0.1 ha to 0.4 ha), Council’s objectives in this area has implications in the south for the Urban Growth Boundary.

3. Strangely, this important document appears to have been completely ignored, by both Casey Council AND the State Government. One cannot help but wonder if this is due, at least in part, to pressure from the development industry supported by Council’s desire for the maximum rates income from the smallest possible area.

4. Insofar as the REAL reasons for people’s increased desire to live in and around Melbourne, there is one simple reason above all others – the need for employmnent. While there are undoubtedly many individuals who prefer to work (and live) in or close to the Central Business District, the vast majority of daily commuters only travel to central Melbourne because of their job and live in the outer suburbs/country areas either for lifestyle preferences or because of the lower cost (and availability) of suitable housing. These are the unfortunates who struggle in their daily journeys with Melbourne’s inadequate roads and/or the sardine cans which pass for the Metropolitan Railway system’s trains.

5. Melbourne’s roads are already totally inadequate for the traffic loads and the railway system is rapidly approaching saturation point in its peak travel time capacity. Even the purchase of many additional trains will not really help if the capacity of the system is insufficient to carry them without unacceptable delays, both to the trains themselves and to road traffic at the many level crossings. The situation is made even worse because of the volume of through traffic (mainly on roads) which has to use the same infrastructure facilities as commuter traffic. The railway situation will become much, much worse with the inevitable push for standard gauge tracks to parallel (or replace) some of the existing broad gauge tracks to allow for interstate freight to proceed without transshipment between different gauge rolling stock.

6. Possible solutions:-

(a) Short to Medium Term:-
? Build a Freeway link between either EastLink or the Eastern Freeway to the Metropolitan Ring Road at Greensborough. This will immediately remove, from the busiest section of the Monash Freeway and the CityLink tunnels, much road traffic traveling between the South, South East and Gippsland on the one hand and the Hume Freeway on the other.
? Accept that it is impractical to build additional railway lines from outer suburbs to the City, although it MAY be possible to reduce car dependency by building one or more circular lines to encourage cross suburb railway travel.
? Encourage large employers in the CBD to increase the use of flexitime and/or shift work to spread the use of roads and public transport over a longer period of time during peak hours. This may of limited benefit since both the morning and evening peak travel times are each approaching four hours in duration.

(b) Longer Term.
? The State Government should adopt a policy of actively encouraging major employers to move administrative functions out of Melbourne altogether to regional or even rural centres. Many, if not most, of these activities no longer need to be centralized in one office building because of modern communication facilities, such as the direct computer links, broadband, the Internet, E_Mail, Fax machines and mobile telephones. This policy, in itself, would reduce the demand for office space, travel facilities and housing in Melbourne’s suburbs. Experience in the U.K. is that it will also improve the lifestyle and health of employees AND reduce costs to employers.
? Both State and Federal Governments should also take steps to move all functions which do not absolutely HAVE to remain in Melbourne to, again, regional and/or rural centres, for exactly the same reasons and with the same benefits to both employees and employers – i.e. the tax paying public.
? Consider providing genuine high speed rail links between expanding rural/regional cities and Melbourne (including the airports) to cater for occasional business travel between rural/regional offices and much smaller Melbourne city centre facilities AND interstate/international travel.

7. Other Benefits.
? The initial, and substantial, benefit of changing the approach to Melbourne’s growing population problem will be the elimination of any extension to the Urban Growth Boundary which, at least in the South East, will remove any threat to high grade agricultural land.
? As a further benefit to the Taxpayer, the Growth Area Authorities bureaucracy could be disbanded immediately.

B. Specific Comments on Consultation Draft

1. Omissions.
• There is no reference whatsoever in this document to the ‘Low Density Residential Zone’ (LDRZ), which exists in many suburbs. The implication of this omission is that ALL LDRZ areas will disappear and be absorbed into one or other of the new zones. This is already apparent in the City of Casey where the Growth Areas Authority (GAA) has prepared an amendment to the Casey Planning Scheme which includes rezoning one Estate from LDRZ to Urban Growth Zone – for future residential development – which directly contradicts the expressed wishes of the great majority of property owners AND THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY OF CASEY COUNCIL.

2. Specific comments:-
• Ref. Page 1 – Minister’s foreword Several claims in this do not stand up to closer scrutiny:-
- The demand for ‘different types of housing’ is more likely to be driven by the development and construction industries than by the expressed wishes of the community. This could lead to a repetition of the planning disasters of the 1950’s when tower blocks of flats were seen as the answer to lower cost housing for the less well off.
- Squeezing more and more people on to smaller and smaller blocks will do nothing to protect our heritage, trees and streetscapes. In fact, it does exactly the reverse with only very narrow spaces between houses (which makes maintenance difficult and costly or even impossible), young trees will be destroyed by vandals and streetscapes will be defaced by graffiti.
- Housing affordability is frequently destroyed by greedy developers who buy large greenfield sites, then delay development to force a shortage of supply leading to very large increases in the cost of individual house lots, coincidently increasing the profits of those developers. The only answer to this problem is for State and/or Federal Governments to impose a penalty tax on developers who hold land undeveloped for more than (say) three years. This tax should then be increased every subsequent year on a logarithmic scale until the land IS developed and individual lots offered for sale. The taxes collected in this way could then be passed on to new home purchasers as a long term replacement to the new home buyers grants.
- WHICH councils have asked for better ways to manage residential development in planning schemes – and WHY?.

• Ref . Page 3 – Why we need new zones
- The biggest single problem facing Councils establishing planning controls that reflect the wishes of their community is the constant over-riding by VCAT of Councils’ decisions in regard to planning applications. This is frequently directly contrary to Minister Madden’s statement to Jon Faine during a radio interview that VCAT does NOT have the right to over-ride a Council’s written policies.
- ‘How will councils use the new zones?’ ‘The provision of smaller or larger backyards’ This does NOT provide Councils with the right to stipulate MINIMUM subdivision sizes for specific neighbourhoods, which will only lead to ad hoc subdivisions, which could well be totally inappropriate, in areas previously subject to specific minimum subdivision sizes.

• Ref. Page 5 – New zone features
- Will existing residents and property owners have the right to object to the application of a specific new zone to their neighbourhood, regardless of who is making the decision to apply that zone?
- The new zones ‘Allow capacity to specify preferred neighbourhood character and preferred design outcomes’ BUT will that ‘capacity’ be solely the prerogative of the local Council or will State Government ministers or other bodies, such as the GAA, also have that right, and possibly the authority to override Councils?
- Will VCAT still be able to override either the default maximum building height OR any council defined variation to that default maximum?
- While the third party notice, objection and appeal provisions are to be retained in all zones, there is no stated requirement for planning/building applications to be advertised, which effectively negates those rights. Also, what rights will still exist in areas/neighbourhoods NOT covered by the new zones?

• Ref. Page 8 – What about residential developments over three storeys?
- Will VCAT be instructed that they will no longer be able to override councils’ decisions restricting the height of new buildings proposed by developers?

• Ref. Page 8 – What happens in Greenfield areas?
- Since the ‘Urban Growth Zone’ is obviously intended to be restricted to larger scale developments, will the GAA, or Councils, have the legal right to apply that zone to neighbourhoods which are already zoned residential – such as ‘Low Density Residential’? A RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION IS REQUIRED URGENTLY. See first bullet point under B. Specification Comments on Consultation Draft 1. Omissions above.

• Ref. Pages 7, 19, 28 and 39 – New Zones and Codes shown on planning scheme maps.
- Why are the zone identifier codes used exactly the same as the current codes, although the uses can be very different? For instance, the existing residential zones 1 and 3 are both anticipated to be in the Incremental Change Zone, identified as ‘R1Z’, allowing a building height of up to 3 storeys, which would be totally inappropriate in many existing neighbourhoods. This re-use of existing codes will be extremely confusing, especially for individuals and organizations which retain copies of old maps.
- Will Councils be able to change zones for specific neighbourhoods.. For instance, the Substantial Change Zone is obviously suitable for greenfields sites, and for areas which are scheduled for extensive redevelopment BUT will that zone be appropriate when development is substantially complete, when one of the other zones may be much more appropriate?

• Ref. Page 15 – Summary
- The claim is made that all three new zones ‘retain third party notice, objection and review provisions’. However, the past history of VCAT decisions AND ‘calling in’ by the Minister (particularly the present incumbent) will not give the taxpaying public any faith at all in the effectiveness of these claims.

• Ref. Page 19 – Clause 32.02-2 Table of Uses.
- Why is ‘Office’ a ‘Permit required’ use in this Substantial use zone when it is a ‘Prohibited’ use in both the Incremental and Limited Change Zones, where such a use MAY already exist?

• Refs. Page 22 – Clause 32.02.4, Page 32 – Clause 32.01.4 and Page 43 – Clause 32.06.5 all state whether or not a ‘Permit’ is required but do NOT specify whether such a permit is a PLANNING or BUILDING permit. Surely a building permit is mandatory for all residential buildings?

• Ref. Page 27 – Incremental Change Zone
- Under ’Where can this zone be applied’, the statement ‘The preferred future character of the area may be formed by the existing housing, by rejuvenating or renewing existing housing or by providing new housing that creates a new neighbourhood character.’ It appears that this could be abused by councils and/or developers to progressively change specific neighbourhoods, such as Low Density Residential, into medium density residential, thus completely destroying the existing character. This is particularly worrying as at least one council officer has stated that the wishes of existing property owners can be ignored by council.
- Under ‘What will councils be able to control?’ individual councils will be able to specify height levels, both lower or higher than the standard 9 metres (3 storeys). Is there a guarantee that neither VCAT nor the Planning Minister will be able to over-ride a council specified height?

• Ref. Page 29 – INCREMEMTAL CHANGE ZONE Purpose
- Why is the third purpose ‘To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.’ NOT the first, or at least the second, ‘Purpose’?

• Ref. Page 32 – Clause 32.01-4 Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
- Why is there no reference to lot sizes over 500 Square Metres? If the current minimum subdivision lot sizes currently stipulated for other zones, such as the 4,000 Sq. M. stipulated for the Low Density Residential Zone, disappear under this proposal, there appears to be NO safeguard against the destruction of neighbourhood character, which is supposedly a feature of this proposal.

• Ref. Pages 35 and 47 SCHEDULES TO THE INCREMENTAL and LIMITED CHANGE ZONES
- Clause 4.0 Permit requirement for one dwelling on a lot I t appears illogical to ask a question at this point in a Schedule.

• Ref. Page 37 – Limited Change Zone – What is the role or purpose of this zone?
- The following should be added – ‘To retain the character of neighbourhoods which have been substantially (and lawfully) developed in the past to provide an environment and lifestyle which would be destroyed by significant changes to development standards.’
- What will councils be able to control? Councils must NOT have the power to change the character of an established neighbourhood WITHOUT the prior agreement of the owners of the majority of the properties in that neighbourhood. This must also apply to the maximum building height.

ALLAN TULLY, MBCS, CITP.
7 Collison Road, CRANBOURNE EAST, Victoria 3977
 

Statutory Planning Systems Reform
Department of Planning and Community Development
GPO Box 2392
Melbourne 3001

Submission: NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOR VICTORIA

This submission is concerned with the Land Uses aspect of the Draft.

SUMMARY:

That the commercialization of residential zones be minimized by the deletion of certain proposed Land Uses.

AMENDMENTS IN THIS DRAFT RE LAND USES:

The Draft continues the current Uses with the following additions :

Substantial Change Zone – Section 1 [Permit not required] – ‘Office up to 100square metres’

Limited Change Zone – Section 2 [Permit required] – Convenience shop, Food and drink premises, Extraction, Place of assembly - ‘The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone’

OBSERVATIONS:

For the past ten years I have been involved with and gained an understanding of state and local planning matters as a member of various committees [ Mornington Peninsula National Trust Branch, Mornington Peninsula Shire’s Mornington Structure Plan Community Reference Group, Kangerong Ward Action Group, etc.].

I am concerned that many of the current Land Uses, and those proposed in the Draft, permit and encourage the creeping commercialization of residential zones on this Peninsula and throughout the State.

The Draft proposes:

Limited Change Zone -

NO PERMIT REQUIRED

Bed and Breakfast

Circus[must satisfy the 1997 Code of Practice]
Carnival [ditto]

PERMIT REQUIRED

Service Station [must adjoin a business or industrial zone]
Car wash

Convenience restaurant
Convenience shop
Food and drink premises
Takeaway food premises

Community market
Leisure and recreation [eg squash court]
Plant nursery
Medical centre
Place of Assembly – [eg funeral parlour, reception rooms]

Substantial Change Zone

Office up to 100 square metres

I believe that the complete aim of residential zone planning should only be as stated in two of the four Purposes-

‘protect the neighbourhood character of the area’

‘achieve neighbourhood character’

New residential development can achieve this, but in the list above [apart from Bed and Breakfast] none of these per se can do this – by their very nature they must negatively affect neighbourhood character, rather than add to it.

A Circus or CarnivalCarnivalCarvival, although temporary, is incompatible with neighbourhood character. A service station and carwash by definition must be industrial in construction and style. Food and drink establishments are not ‘residential’. The other examples listed also are by nature not residential but commercial.

The fourth objective tries to be a catch-all for non-residential uses –

‘In appropriate locations, to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs’

The major problems which cause community angst, municipal involvement and cost, and VCAT intervention constantly erupt in this uneasy and unresolvable interface between residential and non-residential uses.

Issues of 24 hour opening, noise of deliveries and waste management and exhausts, traffic and parking by customers and users, live and amplified music indoors and outdoors, light spill, odours, access in non- Road Zone roads all negatively affect the amenity of residents, especially those who abut and are near to these non-residential uses, and can result in serious material detriment to the financial value of their property. It is interesting to note that the Draft recommendation, with four current Uses upgradedupgradeupgraded to a Road Zone, indicates that these Uses have been impinging in a negative way by being permitted in small residential streets rather than on main roads.

Added to this, the enforcement of planning permits is difficult to monitor by residents and/or seldom done by municipalities.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the commercial uses noted above [except Bed and Breakfast] should be deleted from the Draft, and they only be located in business or industrial or public zones.

2. That ‘Purposes’ in the Draft be amended to -

Number 1 – retain

Numbers 2 and 4 – replace ‘residential development’ with ‘all development’

Number 4 - delete

I would be pleased to address the Advisory Panel.

Peter Holloway

4 McCulloch Street,
Dromana 3936

peterh@alphalink.com.au / 0408 344 593