Victorian planning zone reform

<html><body>
Since the introduction of the new residential zones in 2014, ratio: have been actively involved advocating about issues surrounding their implementation. Collaborating with other consultants, ratio: has been actively involved in the past 4 years seeking to influence the appropriate application of the zones.  Our view has always been that the Zones should allow for the increased density and diversity of housing consistent with the location of public transport and other infrastructure.  Instead the outcome was that for some municipalities, the over use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone locked land away from reasonable development opportunities.

The State Government has completed its pre-election promises of a review of the Residential Zones and the way in which they were implemented.   The key changes are:

<ul>
<li>Removing the restriction on the number of dwellings that can be built on a property in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). The new version of the zone will not limit the number of dwellings on a lot, which for most municipalities, is currently two. </li>
	<li>Increasing the mandatory building height in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone from 8m to 9m, and including a two-storey maximum.</li>
	<li>Changing the discretionary 9m building height in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) to a mandatory height of 11m, and a three-storey maximum.</li>
	<li>Introducing a mandatory garden area requirement for lots over 400m2 in both the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and the General Residential Zone. This will require 25 – 35% of the land area be set aside as landscaping with driveways not included in this calculation.</li>
</ul>
Councils will have the ability to amend a schedule to the zone to include an alternative maximum height, however the height in the schedule cannot be less than the maximum height specified within the parent clause (i.e. 9m in the NRZ, 11m in the GRZ and 13.5m in the RGZ).   

The new garden area requirement applies to development in the NRZ and GRZ of lots over 400m2. The requirement is mandatory and requires a percentage of the land to be set aside for landscaping, in line with the following table.  Significantly, driveways will not be included in this area, which will have an impact on development yield for certain building typologies.

<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width:100%;">
<thead><tr>
<th scope="col">Lot size</th>
			<th scope="col">Minimum percentage</th>
		</tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>400-500 square metres</td>
			<td>25%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>501-650 square metres</td>
			<td>30%</td>
		</tr>
<tr>
<td>650 square metres and above</td>
			<td>35%</td>
		</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2>Transitional Provisions</h2>

The General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone will include transitional provisions in relation to the mandatory building heights (including number of storeys) and garden area requirements. It is not clear at this stage how the changes will address situations where there are contradictions with existing schedules, for example where a schedule to the General Residential Zone specifies a mandatory height of less than 11m.  Stay tuned for more information on this.

We are still yet to understand when the provisions will take place, but we would expect this to be reasonably soon, given the State Government’s other suite of changes which focus on the implementation of the revised Plan Melbourne, also announced today.

<h2>What are our thoughts?</h2>

The changes to the Residential Zones, particularly the NRZ are definitely taking a step in the right direction with the removal of the maximum density of two dwellings per lot.  We have long held the view that an increased density doesn’t necessarily result in a negative impact on neighbourhood character.  For example, demolishing the existing house and building one large house (which may not require a planning permit) can be just as disruptive to a streetscape as building three smaller houses and doesn’t achieve an increase in density generally sought by planning policy throughout metropolitan Melbourne.

Whilst the objectives of the Residential Zones will be amended, it is our understanding that limiting opportunities for increased residential development will remain a key consideration for any decision maker, particularly in areas of identified sensitivity.  Realistically, opportunities for more than two dwellings on a lot will need to be carefully considered in the context of existing and preferred neighbourhood character and the prevalence of medium density housing in the area.  At the least it will allow a more performance based approached to dwelling density that the current zone provision.

The increased building heights are also an improvement which will allow a more considered architectural response and increased floor to ceiling heights where appropriate.

We do have concerns regarding the mandatory garden area requirement, especially with its application with the NRZ and the GRZ.  Our preference will always be for a performance-based approach to such a requirement.  There will no doubt be circumstances where neighbourhood character will allow for a more urban response, or alternatively, a larger lot can provide for a more dense design solution. We would reasonably expect to see less reverse living or lower maintenance housing options.

This article was originally posted on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/residential-zone-reforms-announced-by-state-government">Ratio Consultants website</a>.
</body></html>

colleenp

Residential zone reforms announced by Spring Street

<html><body>
Last Tuesday I attended a VPELA seminar where the Minister for Planning (Richard Wynne) was the guest speaker.  The purpose of the evening was for the Minister to provide an update on how the State Government is progressing with reforming the planning system.

The Minister presented well and his enthusiasm on a number of issues, which he was able to back up with practical examples, made his presentation quite engaging.

In response to high rise development that has largely been unregulated in the CBD, the Minister was quite proud of the interim CBD height and setback controls that were introduced recently and believes they will make a significant difference to how people relate to future built form on the ground.  In addition, the Minister has guaranteed that permanent CBD height controls will be subject to a full exhibition and planning panel process to allow reasonable opportunities for community consultation. 

Furthermore, the Minister is a big advocate of high rise development making a positive contribution to the public realm whether this is through its architecture, height and setbacks or providing a public space or a laneway.

In relation to the review of apartment design by the State Government, the Minister was not supportive of mandatory apartment sizes and is of the view that it is not so much size that matters, but the ability to deliver good apartment design.  This view is shared by Collie and others in the industry.  According to the Minister, draft apartment design guidelines are due to be released later this year.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/architecture-exteriors-2.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="McBride Charles Ryan's Banksia at Newquay; an exemplar of quality design"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="511" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/architecture-exteriors-2.jpg?itok=E0wPqnsn" title="McBride Charles Ryan's Banksia at Newquay; an exemplar of quality design" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>McBride Charles Ryan's Banksia at Newquay; an exemplar of quality design</figcaption></figure>With the development of apartment dwellings in existing suburbs outstripping the number of dwellings being constructed in greenfield areas, the Minister was adamant that existing suburbs must accommodate the bulk of the growth.  Having recognised a barrier to this was often the ‘not in my backyard’ view, the Minister suggested that improved community engagement was necessary to overcome this barrier, but did not elaborate on how this could be achieved.

Surprisingly in his presentation, the Minister was silent on the residential zone review being conducted by the State Government and did not comment on some of the issues with the application of the new zones.  Some of the more critical issues in our view are the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) (the most restrictive zone) providing limited opportunity for re-development and the application of the NRZ in some cases being politicised with no shared commitment across municipalities to accommodate population growth.

The Minister talked about the re-development of ‘grey’ and ‘brownfield’ sites being integral to accommodating residential growth in existing suburbs, but did not mention the role incremental two to four storey townhouse / apartment development, in locations that are well serviced, would play.  This gave the impression that the Minister was taking a cautious approach pending the findings of the residential zone review.

An updated version of Plan Melbourne is to be released in the middle of the year and it was unusual to hear the Minister give credit to the previous State Government for its work in the preparation of the document.  It was also refreshing to see that Melbourne’s key strategic planning document has some bipartisan support with the document to remain largely unchanged.  This is a welcome change from having a new strategic document prepared each time a new State Government is elected.

Following the presentation, a pertinent question was asked in relation to the Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL).  The question related to the lack of guidance that is available on the MPL in order to determine when it is applicable.  It was also pointed out that there is no consistent approach in its application across municipalities. 

The Minister acknowledged that the MPL has caused some confusion and has promised to provide further clarity on its application shortly.

Michael Collie is Director at <a href="http://www.colliepl.com/">Collie Pty Ltd</a>, a Melbourne-based firm specilising in strategic and development planning, urban design and landscape architecture.

Lead image courtesy Skynews
</body></html>

Michael Collie

VPELA seminar and the Minister for Planning

<html><body>
It’s been just over two years since the Victorian Government’s controversial Neighbourhood Residential Zones were gazetted, which restricted new apartment development to certain ‘zones’ within each suburb, thus limiting development on side streets and other designated areas to single-lot dwellings.

The planning amendment was one long fought for by the residents of some of Melbourne’s most affluent suburbs like those surrounding Marshall White’s four offices through Boroondara, Stonnington and Bayside, as they strove to protect their leafy-green streetscapes from new apartment buildings.

Many would say it’s been a win for the residents, however something incredibly interesting and unprecedented is now occurring as a result.

For the first time in recent memory, the same demographic which once vehemently opposed new developments - baby boomers and empty nesters - are looking to sell the family home and purchase a large, bespoke apartment in the same neighbourhood they know and love. It’s an extraordinary shift in sentiment from say two or three years ago when this particular demographic wouldn’t even consider living in an apartment.

On the contrary, now they have wholeheartedly embraced it, but there’s just one problem – the type of apartments they are seeking; boutique projects located on quiet side streets away from the hustle-and-bustle of the main road traffic, don’t actually exist anymore due to the flow on effects of the new planning regulations which have severely restricted new apartment growth in these suburbs.

Developers are now adjusting to the new regulations by purchasing what properties they can on main roads, and redeveloping them into large-scale new apartment buildings. Some landowners are even now cashing in by combining their sites and selling multiple adjoining parcels for a huge profit.

But, with development opportunities now so restricted, developers simply can’t keep up with the demand for more boutique developments of say 10 luxury apartments in quiet neighbourhood streets.

As baby boomers and empty nesters continue to flood the market, there is simply not enough new product coming to market in Melbourne’s inner east and northern suburbs to keep up with demand. With the rapidly changing market, the time is now to reassess the neighbourhood planning guidelines in order to free up the pipeline of new apartment developments in order to adequately satiate demand.

A market as dynamic as Melbourne’s demands flexible planning schemes that provide clarity, are nimbly changed and evolved to keep up with constantly changing market needs.

This new wave of apartment-embracing downsizers will just continue to grow as more and more people seek to trade in their family home for something more manageable, yet still with the luxury finishes and amenity to which they have become accustomed.

Our planning regulations are behind the times and we urgently need reform in order to better serve the market in the future.

Leonard Teplin is Director of Marshall White Projects.

Lead image courtesy Trust Advocate
</body></html>

Leonard Teplin

Government should re-assess the neighbourhood planning zones

<html><body>
In June the Minister for Planning approved approximately 82 per cent of Bayside’s residential land for inclusion within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (the most restrictive zone).

In doing so the Minister requested that Council apply the Residential Growth Zone, which allows development up to 4 storeys to 3 per cent of its residential land.

Reluctantly Council proposed draft Amendment C125 allocating 3 per cent of residential land around Cheltenham, Highett and Hampton East for the Residential Growth Zone.

As part of C125, the Minister appointed an independent Standing Advisory Committee to hear submissions from interested parties in relation to application of the Growth Zone. The report of the committee is due on the 27th November 2014

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/img_2493.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="A fairly common site in bayside suburbs "><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="814" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/img_2493.jpg?itok=DPgIuUFv" title="A fairly common site in bayside suburbs " width="580"></a>

<figcaption>A fairly common site in bayside suburbs at the moment</figcaption></figure>Under pressure from residents within the proposed Growth Zone areas, the Minister visited the area on the 10th November.

Subsequent to the inspection, the local member for Sandringham released a press statement outlining that the Government would no longer require the Council to allocate a minimum area of land to the Residential Growth Zone and would support any Council proposed changes to the Growth Zone amendment.

As a result of these political statements, Bayside City Council was set to consider a motion to abandon the application of the Residential Growth Zone in Bayside and write to all relevant local candidates seeking their support on the 17th of November.

The recommendation also again seeks approval from the Minister for further restrictions within the schedule to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, despite these variations being earlier rejected by the Minister for Planning and being inconsistent with the expert findings of Residential Standing Zones Advisory Committee.

This article originally appeared on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/state-government-reneges-on-new-residential-zone-in-bayside">Ratio Consultants website</a>.
</body></html>

State Government reneges on new Residential Zone in Bayside

<html><body>
Consistent with the Planning Minister’s approach for making a splash, he announced on Friday (13/6) that 39 Victorian municipalities will have their current residential zones converted into the new suite of residential zones as of today. Whilst the amendments also make some other changes, like including business zoned land into the reformed Commercial Zones, the main theme of the Special Government Gazette was the implementation of the new Residential Zones across more than half of Victoria.

For the large part, these changes result in the translation of Residential 1 Zoned land being converted into the General Residential Zone (GRZ), which is the most neutral outcome possible under the circumstances. We would say that this is a smart move on behalf of the Minister, in that it resolves the zones for these 39 local government areas, taking the less controversial translations off his desk and providing certainty for all parties in those municipalities. It is also to the credit of these municipalities in taking a responsible approach in the translation of the zones, a number of which will likely seek further changes down the track, when their strategic housing strategies are developed and go through due process.

The main surprise is the inclusion of the City of Melbourne, which will have all its Residential 1 and Residential 2 Zoned land translated into the GRZ. Whilst this is consistent with the way in which Melbourne City Council originally exhibited the implementation of the zones, it is not the final position of the Council as a consequence of political lobbying by various interest groups. Given the Melbourne CC will be part of Stage 2 of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee, we would expect that the allocation of the General Residential Zone may be a temporary outcome, pending the results of the Committee Review.

In summary, the Councils and the changes are as follows, noting that you should make specific enquiries as to how it will affect your own land:

Council:     Central Goldfields, Gannawarra, Macedon Ranges, Mildura, Mount Alexander, Alpine, Benalla, Indigo, Mansfield, Moira, Murrindindi, Strathbogie, Towong, Bass Coast, Baw Baw, East Gippsland, South Gippsland, Moyne and Wellington 
Change:    Replaces the Residential 1 Zone with the General Residential Zone

Council:      Hobsons Bay, Hume, Melbourne, Mitchell, Wyndham, Golden Plains, Hepburn, Hindmarsh, Horsham, Northern Grampians, Pyrenees, Yarriambiack, Wodonga 
Change:   Residential 2 Zone to the General Residential Zone

Council:     Colac Otway 
Change:   Rezoning land in Residential 1 Zone to the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 and land in Apollo Bay and Marengo covered by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 and Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1

Council:     Monash 
Change:   Replaces land in the Residential 1 Zone into the General Residential Zone and land with a Heritage Overlay in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Council:      Surf Coast 
Change:   Rezones all Residential 1 Zone land to General Residential Zone Schedule 1; rezones all Residential 2 Zone land to General Residential Zone Schedule 2

Council:      Warrnambool 
Change:    All land currently in the Residential 1 Zone to the General Residential Zone Schedule 1, removes Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay from all residential land

Council:      Yarra Ranges 
Change:    Introduces the Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone

This article was originally published on <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/minister-for-planning-approves-new-residential-zones" target="_blank">Ratio Consultants website</a>. Ratio Consultants is an Urban.com.au Industry Hub member.
</body></html>

Planning Minister approves new residential zones in 39 Victorian LGAs

<html><body>
With only a few weeks to go until the deadline for Local Government Areas (LGA) to finalise and have their reformed planning zones ticked off by the Planning Minister, <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/home" target="_blank">Ratio consultants</a> - who have been following the process closely - have published an update on the state of play with the various metropolitan LGAs.
Ratio is tracking the status of each LGA's implementation of the reformed planning zones, linking to related council-specific documentation (where applicable) and providing some insightful commentary. Well worth the read.
The <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/new-residential-zones-overview-may-update" target="_blank">original document</a> has been reproduced below with permission.
<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/224235249/New-Residential-Zones-Update-May-2014?secret_password=LNWJpl4uJLIOo5nW0UCo" title="View New Residential Zones Update - May 2014 on Scribd">New Residential Zones Update - May 2014</a>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_31154" scrolling="no" src="//www.scribd.com/embeds/224235249/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>
</body></html>

Alastair Taylor

The state of new planning zone reforms - May 2014

<html><body>
The State Government released new Residential Zones for implementation in July 2013. These zones effectively sought to replace the Residential 1, 2 and 3 Zones with the General Residential (GRZ), Residential Growth (RGZ) and Neighbourhood Residential (NRZ) Zones. A major departure from the existing zone controls is the mandatory nature of many of the requirements, including:
<ul>
<li>
		In the NRZ restricting development to two dwellings per lot, setting a maximum building height of 8.0 metres and enabling councils to set minimum lots sizes.</li>
	<li>
		In the GRZ (which is arguably the old Res 1 Zone), setting maximum heights that allow a maximum of 2-3 storey development.</li>
	<li>
		In the RGZ, setting mandatory heights that allow a maximum of 4 storey development, noting that ResCode now applies to 4 storey buildings.</li>
</ul>
Councils across the state were given until 30 June 2014 to implement the zones, replacing the old suite of zones with the new.
On the surface this didn't raise significant concerns within the development or planning industry, as the Advisory Note that accompanied the zones gave reasonable comfort that the zones would be applied in a sensible and logical manner. In particular, the NRZ, the most restrictive of all the zones, is to be applied in relatively limited circumstances, where there is recognised neighbourhood character, environmental or landscape significance.
However, it is evident that a number of councils are seeking to broadly apply the Neighbourhood Residential Zone as the default zone, covering anywhere from 70% to 90% of the residential land in their municipalities. Councils such as Bayside, Boroondara, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Yarra are proposing that between 70-90% of their residential land will be in the NRZ. It is incredible to believe that in the vast majority of these areas, a 3 unit development will be prohibited, regardless of the context of the site, such as the location of the 1960s block of flats next door.
In the City of Glen Eira, one of only two municipalities to have its zones approved, nearly 80% of residential land is located within the NRZ. Glen Eira, like many established municipalities, has considerable infill development from earlier periods, such as the 60s and 70s, that make medium density housing in these pockets a sensible and logical outcome. However, the days of building townhouses in between 1960s six packs are long gone and these sites are now only suitable for dual occupancies.
The City of Boroondara has adopted (without public consultation) the extensive use of the NRZ, where in most instances, the adoption of a 500 sqm minimum lot size for about 70% of the municipality, will render even two unit developments prohibited as 1000sqm is required to obtain separate titles. The icing on the cake for this council is that whilst locking away the majority of the municipality from any urban growth, Boroondara then seeks to only use the Residential Growth Zone along a small section of Power Street and Riversdale Road from the Yarra River to Camberwell Junction. No other nodes along tram lines or railway stations qualify in this council's mind to accommodate anything more than a two storey building in most instances. Where Boroondara has sought to apply the General Residential Zone, it of course seeks to use the mandatory height controls, but then largely applies this zone in areas of the municipality covered by single covenants.
This approach by councils was reinforced by the State Government late last year when the draft Plan Melbourne was released, proposing that more than 50% of residential Melbourne would be placed in the NRZ.
However, there are significant implications in effectively locking away the majority of suburban Melbourne from residential development. New housing choices will be limited to high rise development or the outer fringe, with little choice in between. This will impact housing choice, sustainability as well as affordability.
Melbourne was recently found by the "Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey" to be the 6th least affordable city in the world, where restrictive land use policies were cited as one of the significant factors in unaffordability. The restriction on the reasonable development of land in suburban Melbourne can only increase housing prices, particularly in the established housing market. There will be no real alternative to established homes in the inner and middle suburbs, with townhouses and small scale apartment buildings effectively restricted to only small pockets. With a limited supply of new housing choices in established areas, existing homes can only rise in value, becoming even more unaffordable.
Coupled with the significant issue of affordable housing is the underestimation by the State Government in its population forecast for Plan Melbourne. Figures released by the ABS in Nov 2013 show an additional 2.1 million people are predicted for Melbourne by 2050. This is in additional to the 2.05 million to 2.85 million people assumed by Plan Melbourne.
The creation of development "go go" areas, such as Fisherman's Bend and other urban renewal sites will be an important part of the solution in providing an affordable supply of housing. Obviously the implementation of infrastructure, in particular public transport for Fisherman's Bend, will be key to the success of these precincts. But locking away 70-90% of Melbourne's residential land from anything more than 2 unit developments can only be seen as madness.
The urban consolidation of residential areas, particularly those with reasonable access to public transport and other infrastructure, has been the cornerstone of State Government Policy during my working lifetime. It is mind boggling the political energy the State Government is expending, trying to lock away Melbourne's suburbs from residential development.
The politics of kowtowing to a noisy minority who seek to preserve their streets will undermine the broader government strategy to substantially increase the size of our capital city. Quite simply, the Government can't have its cake and eat it too. It is ludicrous to nearly double the population of Melbourne over the next 35 years, whilst at the same time propose to prevent residential development in most of suburban Melbourne (in Glen Eira's case that's around 80%) and commit to holding the urban growth boundary. Something has to give!
It is important that concerns regarding the zones be voiced to the State Government and submissions lodged with respective councils as they place their zones on public exhibition. Given that entire zone review was a result of a noisy minority, such as Save our Suburbs, creating waves regarding "inappropriate development", the development and planning industry must makes its opinion heard and soon.
If you want to voice your opinion, I would suggest writing to:
 
<dl>
<dt>
		The Premier</dt>
	<dd>
		The Honorable Dr Denis Napthine - Department of Premier and Cabinet</dd>
	<dd>
		e: <a href="mailto:denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au">denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au</a>
</dd>
	<dt>
		The Treasurer</dt>
	<dd>
		The Honorable Michael O'Brien - Department of Treasury and Finance</dd>
	<dd>
		e: <a href="mailto:michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au">michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au</a>
</dd>
	<dt>
		The Planning Minister</dt>
	<dd>
		The Honorable Matthew Guy - Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure</dd>
	<dd>
		e: <a href="mailto:matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au">matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au</a>
</dd>
</dl>
It is essential that correspondence be addressed to all three ministers as it is important that an understanding of what is happening is spread across all arms of government and not just the planning minister's office.
Here are some points which you might consider raising in any correspondence to the Victorian Government.
The widespread use of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone will:
<ul>
<li>
		Make entry into the housing market more difficult due to cost of housing.</li>
	<li>
		Redirect affordable housing to the urban fringes and high density inner-city locations.</li>
	<li>
		Limit housing diversity and the ability for people to downsize and stay within the local community.</li>
	<li>
		Limit the opportunities for people using their property for super</li>
	<li>
		Push affordable housing growth to areas with limited access to jobs, public transport and community facilities.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://www.ratio.com.au/team" target="_blank">Colleen Peterson</a> is a Director at <a href="http://www.ratio.com.au" target="_blank">Ratio Consultants</a> with over 20 years of experience leading statutory and strategic planning projects for both private and public clients.  Colleen tweets regularly on Victorian planning zone reform - you can follow Colleen at <a href="https://twitter.com/colleenpeterson" target="_blank">@colleenpeterson</a>, and similarly you can use the hash tag #reszones to focus debate on this topic.
</body></html>

New Residential Zones - what does this mean for Melbourne

<html><body>
On December 24th City of Stonnington lodged a request seeking approval for <a href="http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/connect-with-us/state-planning-reforms-/new-residential-zones-/" target="_blank">new planning zones</a> with the State Government.  According to the still active <a href="http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/theplanningsystem/improving-the-system/new-zones-for-victoria/new-and-reformed-residential-zones" target="_blank">DPCD website</a> "Reformed residential zones for Victoria have been approved to better respond to present-day requirements and will give greater clarity about the type of development that can be expected in any residential area."  With that in mind City of Stonnington, like all metropolitan Melbourne councils are required to analyse and consult their municipality and then ultimately roll out the newly reformed zones.

The map produced for the initial consultation period (see below) shows a larger use of the new Residential Growth Zone, whilst a comparison of the consultation/adopted maps shows High Street, Wattletree Road and Waverley Road have had their Residential Growth Zone overlay replaced with General Residential.  Likewise Toorak Road east of Orrong Road no longer sports the Residential Growth zone along one of the municipality's main thoroughfares.

The prominence of the Commercial Zone, <a href="http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/197352/34_01.pdf" target="_blank">which can incorporate residential uses</a>, in the western end of the municipality will ensure Chapel Street remains the primary focus of Stonnington's growth.  Chadstone Shopping Centre toward the far eastern end of Stonnington is naturally Commercial and interestingly the entire Stonnington side of Dandenong Road and Warrigal road around Chadstone is to receive the new Residential Growth zone.  

How long can we leave Chadstone without a fixed heavy rail link?  <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/all-roads-lead-to-chadstone" target="_blank">Urban.com.au has posed the question in the past</a>.

Upon analysing the maps - both the consultation period and council-adopted versions - a clear theme for the new Residential Growth Zone has been paired with Stonnington's many tram corridors.  For instance this section of Malvern Road, as seen below in Google's Street view, has been endorsed to have the new Residential Growth Zone.  

<iframe frameborder="0" height="394" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&amp;t=m&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.854137,145.049741&amp;panoid=8joBoWpXdiWRYac7sWehkQ&amp;cbp=13,266.32,,0,11.05&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=-37.857113,145.051482&amp;spn=0.006675,0.01502&amp;z=16&amp;output=svembed" width="100%"></iframe> <a href="https://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&amp;t=m&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.854137,145.049741&amp;panoid=8joBoWpXdiWRYac7sWehkQ&amp;cbp=13,266.32,,0,11.05&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=-37.857113,145.051482&amp;spn=0.006675,0.01502&amp;z=16" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a>

Similarly the section of Glenferrie Road between Malvern Road and High Street has been endorsed for the same Residential Growth zone treatment, enforcing the ideal that  higher density living should be within close proximity to light rail services.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="394" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&amp;t=h&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.853831,145.029708&amp;panoid=xssO6qjs_sf0UGMTYVf69Q&amp;cbp=13,15.52,,0,1.58&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=-37.855167,145.030367&amp;spn=0.003338,0.00751&amp;z=17&amp;output=svembed" width="100%"></iframe> <a href="https://maps.google.com.au/?ie=UTF8&amp;t=h&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.853831,145.029708&amp;panoid=xssO6qjs_sf0UGMTYVf69Q&amp;cbp=13,15.52,,0,1.58&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=-37.855167,145.030367&amp;spn=0.003338,0.00751&amp;z=17" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a>

Click the maps below to see a larger images of the residential zones as envisaged by City of Stonnington.  Alternatively click <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/reformed-planning-zones-city-of-moreland" target="_blank">here</a> to see Urban.com.au's previous rundown on City of Moreland's changes, another council with intense development within its locality that will receive clarity in planning via the reformed residential zoning.

 
</body></html>

Reformed planning zones: City of Stonnington

<html><body>
As someone who grew up in the outer South East beyond Dandenong, the announcement - made yesterday by the Planning Minister - where Greater Dandenong reformed Planning Zones have been implemented has perked a fair bit of personal interest.

For more than a decade Greater Dandenong has been in and out of the planning news with many attempts to kick of the revitalisation of Central Dandenong - it comes as no surprise Greater Dandenong is one of the first cabs off the rank (<a href="http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/News/Height_limits_over_all_residentially_zoned_land" target="_blank">Glen Eira</a> was the first).  

Whilst reading <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/councils-opt-for-nimby-approach-on-growth-20131106-2x1kg" target="_blank">this</a> interesting piece in The Age yesterday, I pondered what it will eventually be like to compare the various council's proposed or now gazetted new zones.  I had hoped to provide a map for Greater Dandenong similar to the Glen Eira and <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/reformed-planning-zones-city-of-moreland" target="_blank">Moreland</a> maps previously linked to / posted, however the community consultation material is not readily available on the web.  

Central Dandenong is one to watch: <a href="http://www.revitalisingcentraldandenong.com/cs/Satellite?c=VPage&amp;cid=1191565185337&amp;pagename=RCD%2FLayout" target="_blank">Lonsdale Street</a> works, the <a href="http://www.drumtheatre.com.au/" target="_blank">Drum Theatre</a> and a <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/forum/dandenong-revitalising-central-dandenong" target="_blank">large amount of commercial/office development and investment</a> represent a positive direction for this major South East centre.  

One notable aspect of the press release, below, is the rezoning of the <a href="http://www.estate1.com.au/" target="_blank">"Estate One" </a>area in Dandenong South - the area made famous by manufacturing in the 1950s.  Past and present Pakenham train line commuters will recognise the location as being right next door to the now closed General Motors station, time to re-assess the station's closure?  

Planning Minister's Media Release in full:

<p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/182275632/131107-Guy-New-residential-zones-for-Dandenong-pdf" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View 131107 Guy - New residential zones for Dandenong.pdf on Scribd">131107 Guy - New residential zones for Dandenong.pdf</a>

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_77694" scrolling="no" src="//www.scribd.com/embeds/182275632/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>

As further details emerge, I'll update this post.
</body></html>

Greater Dandenong reformed planning zones implemented

<html><body>
The City of Moreland has been busy drafting new zones made possible by the Planning Minister's state-wide planning zone <a href="http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning/theplanningsystem/improving-the-system/new-zones-for-victoria" target="_blank">reform</a> and has kicked off a mail &amp; online campaign to get its residents engaged on the proposed new residential zones their strategic planners have drafted.  At first glance. Moreland have been quite liberal in their proposal now open for public comment - click <a href="http://www.morelandplanning.com/" target="_blank">here</a> to view the dedicated site and full supporting document suite.

For convenience, here is the map of the proposed zone changes - copyright to City of Moreland, click for (much!) larger view.

<a href="http://www.morelandplanning.com/themes/bootstrap/img/ZoningMap.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/moreland_zoning_map.jpg?itok=TQ3ivNRY" style="width: 702px; height: 886px;" title="City of Moreland proposed zone changes"></a>

What are the new reformed planning zones?  With many thanks to the City of Moreland, they have produced a succinct two-pager outlining it clearly which can be viewed <a href="http://www.morelandplanning.com/themes/bootstrap/pdf/newzones/New%20Residential%20Zones%20Info.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> (PDF).  

Analysis

The backbone of Brunswick &amp; Coburg - Sydney Road - along with Glenroy &amp; Brunswick East (Lygon/Nicholson Streets) keep their own structure plans but interestingly in the south west of the Local Government Area (LGA), Brunswick West has a proposed widespread application of the new Residential Growth Zone intermixed with the strict Neighbourhood Residential zone furthermore protected with a heritage overlay.  From the southern boundary with the City of Melbourne on Park Street all the way to the intersection of Melville &amp; Moreland roads, the #55 tram and various cross-town bus routes look set to have patronage increase considerably should this new zoning be applied and redevelopment kick off soon after.  

I've <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/bus-routes-which-need-improvement-the-506" target="_blank">previously written</a> about the #506 bus route and should the proposed zone map look somewhat like the map Moreland have produced for public comment, the need to fix idiotic leftovers from the days when trams and buses competed for passengers will become even more apparent - more so north of Bell Street.  

Melville &amp; Albion Brunswick West, set to change under the proposed reformed zone implementation.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com.au/maps?dg=opt&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;t=h&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.759206,144.944789&amp;panoid=gJla4R3amfQJH0grVGdrYQ&amp;cbp=13,7.97,,0,1.23&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=-37.761127,144.944794&amp;spn=0.006684,0.01502&amp;z=16&amp;output=svembed" width="100%"></iframe> <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps?dg=opt&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;t=h&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.759206,144.944789&amp;panoid=gJla4R3amfQJH0grVGdrYQ&amp;cbp=13,7.97,,0,1.23&amp;source=embed&amp;ll=-37.761127,144.944794&amp;spn=0.006684,0.01502&amp;z=16" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a>

In the far south east of the LGA, Nicholson St - partly covered by an existing structure plan - appears to be headed for zoning consistency.  The land not covered by the existing structure plan along the corridor is set to have the residential growth zone applied which just so happens to be the same region the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/transforming-australian-cities-a-must-read" target="_blank">Transforming Australian Cities</a> strategy used as one of its 3 case studies.

The Bell Street corridor west of Sydney Road, specifically around the terminus of the #55 tram in Pascoe Vale South looks set to be protected which is curious given Bell Street has one of the best middle-ring suburban bus routes (actually, multiple routes) as well as radial tram access.  With the advent of the Boondoggling East-West tunnel, if you were the State Government one would assume traffic through this corridor will reduce and therefore with a calmer road, building density could be increased creating a more appealing urban environment.  Maybe City of Moreland doesn't see it that way? 

Regardless, the video produced by Moreland (see their <a href="http://www.morelandplanning.com/" target="_blank">website</a>) talks about increasing development intensity around existing shopping strips as well as Public Transport corridors - Melville Road and Bell Street has both yet it is proposed to be protected under the Residential Neighbourhood Zone.

Melville &amp; Bell Pascoe Vale South - all the public transport infrastructure is here as well as existing retail space, yet is not set to receive new Residential Growth Zoning under the current Moreland proposal.

<iframe frameborder="0" height="400" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="https://www.google.com.au/maps?dg=opt&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;t=h&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.739263,144.945708&amp;panoid=7FQtSVfAiMGz0zc2SDI8bg&amp;cbp=13,301.06,,0,8.62&amp;ll=-37.740532,144.94635&amp;spn=0.002664,0.00603&amp;z=17&amp;source=embed&amp;output=svembed" width="100%"></iframe> <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps?dg=opt&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;t=h&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=-37.739263,144.945708&amp;panoid=7FQtSVfAiMGz0zc2SDI8bg&amp;cbp=13,301.06,,0,8.62&amp;ll=-37.740532,144.94635&amp;spn=0.002664,0.00603&amp;z=17&amp;source=embed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a>

Up in the north of the LGA, Hadfield / West Street looks set to have the residential growth zone - where apartments/units up to 4 levels can be built. If you look at the current LGA map from Moreland on <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/Maps/Localities/PDFs/37_Moreland_LAM.pdf" target="_blank">PTV's site</a>, there's a single bus route which, like many all over the city, zig zags around back streets trying to do too many things at once.  Serious input from Spring Street and PTV is required to streamline the routes north of Bell Street - applying a zone which could result in near 250-350 people/hectare living in buildings up to 4 levels away from the primary public transport corridors and the existing bus system is going to require work.  

So Moreland residents, you can go here: <a href="http://www.morelandplanning.com/your-suburb">http://www.morelandplanning.com/your-suburb</a> enter your address and see the proposed changes relative to your address.

 
</body></html>

Victorian planning zone reform

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Victorian planning zone reform

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News