Date: 20 October 2016
Part B - Submission by the Planning Authority
Moreland City Council
Planning Scheme Amendment C161
395-429 Albert Street, Brunswick
TRIM:D16/342932
Contents
Introduction
Structure of submission
Overview
Subject land and surrounds
Key Issues
Built form
Height and mandatory controls
Clifton Park interface
Albert Street interface
Western interface
Car parking, traffic and circulation
Car parking
Volume of traffic in the precinct
Primary Public Path
Laneway to Pearson Street
Affordable housing
Landscaping
Response to Evidence Tabled
Amendment C158 status update
Council’s final position on the amendment
Attachments
Introduction
1.This submission is made by Moreland City Council (Council). Council is the Planning Authority for Planning Scheme Amendment C161 (Amendment C161) to the Moreland Planning Scheme (Planning Scheme).
2.My name is Richard Tolliday. I am a Strategic Planner at Moreland City Council (Council) and I will be presenting Council’s submission to the Panel on Amendment C161.
3.I will be assisted throughout the submission by Liz Nairn, Unit Manager of Strategy, (Strategic Planning) at Council, who has overseen the preparation and management of the Amendment, in her role as my direct supervisor.
4.To assist the Panel to understand Council’s strategic position on some of the key issues raised in submissions, the following presentations will be made by Council officers as part of Council’s submission:
- Open Space – Alex English, Open Space Planner, Moreland City Council
- Urban Design – Munir Vahanvati, Unit Manager Urban Design, Moreland City Council
- Transport and Car Parking – Craig Griffiths, Strategic Transport Planner, Moreland City Council.
Structure of submission
5.This submission forms Part B of Council’s submission to the Panel. Part A was provided to parties on 12 October 2016 and provides the strategic justification for the amendment and overview of the Amendment process undertaken to date. Part B addresses submissions received as a result of public exhibition of the amendment.
6.Council’s Part B Submission will be presented in the following format:
- Brief overview of the amendment and site context
- Key issues raised in submissions and response
- Response to evidence tabled
- Final position on the amendment
7.Each key issue raised in submissions will be addressed using the following format:
- Summary of key issue and relevant submissions
- Discussion
- Recommendation
Overview
8.Amendment C161 was prepared at the request of Planning Studio on Peel acting on behalf of the owners of the following land parcels:
395 Albert Street Brunswick
Chris Tabone
EnerMech (formerly Valve - Tech Nominees Pty Ltd)
397-401 Albert Street, Brunswick
Eric Ong
Kenrick Manor Pty Ltd
413 Albert Street Brunswick
Dimittrios and Georgia Efstattiou
417 Albert Street Brunswick
Murat Dogan
AL_AN Enterprises Pty Ltd
423 Albert Street Brunswick
John Costanzo
Chempet Pty Ltd
427 Albert Street, Brunswick
Mark Finn
Central Collection Agency Pty Ltd
Figure 1. Map of the precinct indicating the proponent properties
9.The Amendment affects land at 395-429 Albert Street, BRUNSWICK VIC 3056 (the subject precinct), as shown in Figure 1, and proposes to:
- Rezone the precinct from the Industrial 1 Zone (INZ1) to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ).
- Introduce a new Design and Development Overlay (DDO26) to the precinct. DDO26 applies built form requirements to achieve defined design outcomes including a mandatory maximum height of six storeys.
- Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the precinct to ensure potential contamination issues are addressed.
10.On 9 December 2015, Council resolved to write to the Minister for Planning to seek Authorisation to prepare Amendment C161, and following receipt of the Minister’s Authorisation of Amendment C161, to proceed to public exhibition in accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987(the Act).
11.On 12 January 2016 the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning confirmed that Amendment C161 could proceed with authorisation from the Minister for Planning.
12.The amendment was exhibited from 3 March 2016 to 7 April 2016 (total of 26 business days) in accordance with Section 19 of the Act.
13.A total of 10 submissions were received in relation to Amendment C161 during the exhibition period, with a further three late submissions received after Council had considered submissions.
14.On 10 August 2016, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel in accordance with Part 8 of the Act to consider submissions.
15.The three late submissions have been forwarded directly to the Panel for consideration, however to assist the Panel a Council Officer response will be provided as part of this submission.
Subject land and surrounds
16.The precinct is composed of 12 individual land holdings known as: 395, 397-401, 403, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413, 417, 423, 427 and 429 Albert Street, Brunswick. The precinct has a total land area of approximately 1.74 hectares. The Precinct is currently zoned Industrial 1 Zone and is not affected by any overlays other than the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (which affects the entire municipality).
17.The subject precinct is located at the western end of Albert Street, Brunswick. The precinct is located between Gilpin and Clifton Parks, the largest concentration of open space within the municipality (apart from the creek corridors). The northern and eastern boundaries of the precinct have direct interface with Clifton Park of approximately 408m in length.
18.Clifton Park is an active recreation space which includes a junior oval, synthetic soccer pitch, outdoor stage and a skate park. At the north east corner of the precinct (395 Albert Street) is a toilet/change block.
19.Gilpin Park, south of the precinct across Albert Street, is a passive recreation space with several paths running through it. Glipin Park has southern abuttals with an industrial precinct and the Brickworks residential precinct.
20.The northern edge of the western most property within the precinct (429 Albert Street) abuts a 4-5 storey residential development, which also has abuttals to Clifton Park along its eastern boundary.
21.West of the subject land are a number of single storey residential properties which front Albert and Pearson streets. These properties are zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1 (NRZ1) and are within a Heritage Overlay precinct.
22.Further east along Albert Street is the Brunswick Core Industrial Precinct, the Upfield rail line and the Brunswick Activity Centre.
23.The Precinct is currently occupied by a number of uses including industrial material storage, a kitchen design and construction business, wholesale pet food and supplies, auto repairs, offices, food manufacturing, engineering services and five residential dwellings.
24.The precinct is identified as a Category 3 – Transition-Residential area in the recently adopted Moreland Industrial Land Strategy, and as such its rezoning to Mixed Use Zone is supported. The policy context is detailed in Council’s Part A Submission.
25.
Key Issues
26.A total of 13 submissions were received on Amendment C161, 10 of which were considered by Council at the 10 August 2016 Council meeting (see Attachment 4 of Council’s Part A Submission). The key issues raised in submissions have been summarised as:
- Built form
- Height and mandatory controls
- Clifton park interface
- Albert Street interface
- Western interface
- Car parking and traffic and circulation
- Car parking
- Traffic in the precinct
- Primary Public Path
- Affordable housing
- Landscaping
27.All submissions are summarised in the table at Attachment 5 of Council’s Part A submission.
Built form
Height and mandatory controls
Summary of issue
28.Submissions 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 & 13 raised concerns both with the nominated heights in the DDO26 and the mandatory nature of the heights.
29.Some submitters thought the heights were too high and were concerned about the interface with Clifton Park, landscaping and setback requirements.
30.The proponents and submission on behalf of 429 Albert Street submitted that the six storeys should not be a mandatory control and requested it be changed to a discretionary control.
Discussion
31.State and local planning policy encourages urban consolidation and increased density housing on large sites in existing urban areas and on urban renewal sites such as this one.
32.Council’s position on the heights is informed by the precinct’s context, documented in the Albert Street Urban Renewal Precinct - Urban Context Report,Planning Studio on Peel (November 2015), that was submitted by the proponents and the built form hierarchy defined in Council’s MSS.
33.The urban context analysis prepared for the amendment identifies the precinct as being capable of accommodating higher built forms based on the precinct’s context, its size and location. To the south-west of the precinct are several existing three storey walk up flats. To the north of the precinct is an existing apartment development abutting Clifton Park which includes built form elements of four and five storeys
34.The existing built form in the precinct includes several large blank industrial buildings and there is an existing approval for a five storey warehouse building at 427 Albert Street, which is yet to be acted upon.
35.Due to the size of the site (1.74 hectares) and limited number of residential interfaces it is considered that the precinct can accommodate a significant increase in housing density. However this must be balanced with the need to integrate appropriately with the surrounding residential and park context.
36.Council’s MSS at Clause 21.02-3 sets out a defined hierarchy for housing growth and where significant change is expected to occur. Moreland has three Activity Centres (Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy), which are expected to experience the greatest level of change in character and increase in housing supply. These locations have excellent access to public transport, employment and services. Built form in these Activity Centres ranges from 4 to 10 storeys.
37.Beneath these Activity Centres are a number of smaller centres which are defined as Neighbourhood Centres. Council is currently in the process of further clarifying and defining the role of these centres through Amendment C159 which has recently completed a Panel Hearing and is awaiting a Panel report.
38.The built form expected in these Neighbourhood Centres is defined by a four storey mandatory height control, which is being sought through Amendment C159.
39.The introduction of the new residential zones has allowed council to define areas of incremental and minimal housing growth using the General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone respectively.
40.395-429 Albert Street, Brunswick is a former industrial precinct which is not located within an Activity or Neighbourhood Centre.Council’s current MSS at Clause 21.02-3 includes the following direction in regards to Land for industry and economic regeneration:
A limited number of industrial areas – Multi Use – Residential Precincts and Transition–Residential Precincts will also contribute to housing supply in Moreland.
41.This position is further enhanced by proposed Amendment C158 which includes the following wording in the amended MSS:
- 21.02-2 – MSS Directions
A limited number of industrial areas identified as Transition Residential Areas (Category 3) will contribute to housing supply in Moreland. Zone selection and the associated scale and rate of change in these areas will be determined by the size and location of the site and the ability to manage off site impacts and integrate with the scale of the surrounding neighbourhood at site or precinct boundaries.
Increased housing densities and a change in character towards a more dense urban environment are also encouraged on Transition Residential Areas (Category 3) in the Moreland Industrial Land Strategy that have been rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) or Residential Growth Zone (RGZ).
- 21.03-3 – Housing
Encourage increased density housing to be located on former industrial sites designated as Transition Residential Areas (Category 3) in the Moreland Industrial Land Strategy 2015-2030 that have been rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) or Residential Growth Zone (RGZ).
42.There is a clear expectation that former industrial precincts such as this are expected to provide for increased housing densities taking into account the surrounding context.
43.The precinct, while being close to the Brunswick Activity Centre and the Grantham/Union Neighbourhood Centre, is not in a nominated centre within Council’s strategic framework and therefore it is considered that the precinct sits between the Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres in the hierarchy. It is considered that a maximum four storey interface with an overall maximum height of six storeys achieves the housing and built form outcomes that are sought for a precinct such as this.
Mandatory heights
44.Analysis is provided against Planning Practice Note PPN:59 The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes to justify Council’s amendment to introduce mandatory building height controls into the precinct.
45.The Practice Note states that mandatory provisions will be the exception, and that they must achieve “a preferable and efficient outcome.” Examples provided include areas of high heritage value, strong and consistent character themes, or sensitive environmental locations such as coastal areas.
46.Below is an assessment against the criteria set out in Practice Note 59:
Criteria / AssessmentIs the mandatory provision strategically supported?
- Does the proposed measure have a sound strategic basis having regard to the planning objective to be achieved and the planning policy framework generally?
- Does the proposed mandatory measure clearly implement a policy or achieve an objective rather than just being a prescriptive tool?
The precinct is located with an extensive interface to Clifton Park along the northern and eastern boundary, a long interface to Gilpin Park across Albert Street along the southern boundary and an interface with a sensitive low scale existing residential area along the western boundary which is located in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) and a Heritage Overlay precinct (HO).
With regard to planning policy, Moreland’s MSS identifies a hierarchy of housing change linked to the Activity and Neighbourhood Centre hierarchy and residential zones, with a related hierarchy of building heights, as follows:
Substantial Housing Growth
- Coburg and Brunswick Activity Centres - heights of up to 10 storeys.
- Glenroy Activity Centre and twelve nominated Neighbourhood Centres - heights of up to 4 storeys.
- Residential Growth Zone - heights of up to 4 storeys.
- General Residential Zone - heights of 2-3 storeys.
- Neighbourhood Residential Zone - heights of 2 storeys.
It is considered that a mandatory maximum height of 6 storeys for the precinct (which is in the MILS ‘Category 3 – Transition-Residential Areas’) fits within the change and height hierarchy established in the MSS. A mandatory maximum of 6 storeys ensures the precinct does not undermine the hierarchy of the Coburg and Brunswick Activity Centres as the preferred locations for the tallest buildings in Moreland.
Is the mandatory provision appropriate to the majority of proposals?
- Has the scope of the proposed mandatory provision been carefully considered to ensure that it will be appropriate in the vast majority of cases to limit the unnecessary loss of the flexibility and opportunity available in a performance based system?
- Will the considered application of planning policy to be implemented by the proposed measure lead to the outcome prescribed by the measure in the vast majority of cases or is it merely one of a number of possible outcomes?
The urban context report for the site demonstrates that the precinct is large enough to accommodate the proposed mandatory maximum height and a level of flexibility within this overall height will be provided for smaller sites within the precinct.
It is considered that any height above the nominated maximum height has the potential to overwhelm the public open space located to the north, east and south of the precinct, detract from the heritage significance of the residential area to the west of the precinct which is in a Heritage Overlay (HO) and have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood character of the area to the west of the precinct which is zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).
It is considered that the framework plan and indicative built form outcomes included in the DDO26 demonstrate an ideal planning outcome for the precinct which can be achieved across the different landholdings or in instances of site amalgamation. Any proposal that seeks to construct buildings above the preferred heights will detract from the site through visual bulk, loss of daylight and loss of sunlight.
Does the mandatory provision provide for the preferred outcome?
- Does a proposed mandatory provision resolve divergent opinions within the community as to a preferred outcome when a consistent outcome is necessary?
- Does a proposed mandatory provision avoid the risk of adverse outcomes in circumstances where there is likely to be constant pressure for development inconsistent with planning policy?
- Is there real evidence of development exceeding the proposed control?
It is considered that because the proposed mandatory height control will apply only to the precinct, it will not compromise development opportunities elsewhere in Moreland.
Evidence of development exceeding discretionary controls of a similar height are common throughout Moreland, especially within the Brunswick Activity Centre.
Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the mandatory provision be clearly unacceptable?
- Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the requirements fail to meet the objectives of the control?
- Will the majority of proposals not in accordance with the requirements lead to unacceptable planning outcomes?
Will the mandatory provision reduce administrative costs?
- Will the proposed mandatory provision reduce costs imposed on councils, applicants and the community to the extent that it significantly outweighs the benefit of a performance based provision?
47.Plan Melbourne 2014 foreshadowed an increased use of mandatory controls, recognising the need for clarity and certainty around built form expectations.