EXPERT WITNESS REPORT - fe.yarraranges.vic.gov.aufe.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/files/06e6e4c9-4a73-4a3f-85f2-a20700b8a7... · EXPERT WITNESS REPORT Amendment C126 to the Yarra Ranges

EXPERT WITNESS REPORT Amendment C126 to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme

Mike Scott

Report Prepared for the Yarra Ranges Council

25 July 2013

Mike Scott Expert Witness Report | Amendment C126

© planisphere 25/07/2013 2

CONTENTS 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3

Qualifications & Experience ................................................................................ 3

Instructions ........................................................................................................ 4

Summary of My Opinions ................................................................................... 4

2 Amendment C126 & its context .......................................................................... 6

Policy Context .................................................................................................... 6

3 Vision 2020 by Design ....................................................................................... 10

4 Proposed DDO Provisions ................................................................................. 13

Summary of proposed Schedules ...................................................................... 14

5 Key Issues ..........................................................................................................16

does Vision 2020 provide a strategic basis for C126? ..........................................16

Is C126 an appropriate translation of Vision 2020? ............................................. 21

The Content of the DDOs ................................................................................. 26

Are the height provisions justifiable? ................................................................. 27

Does C126 allow sufficient development opportunities? .................................... 31

6 Summary of Opinions ........................................................................................ 32

Appendices ................................................................................................................ 33

A: Mike Scott CV ..................................................................................................

B: Assessment of Building Height Provisions Prepared by Shire of Yarra Ranges .

Last saved 25/07/2013 4:13 PM

Last printed 25/07/2013 4:20 PM



1 INTRODUCTION

QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE 1 My name is Michael John Crosby Scott and I am a managing director of Planisphere

Pty Ltd, a planning and urban design consultancy located at Level 1/160 Johnston Street, Fitzroy. I have a Bachelor of Arts (Town Planning) and have been a Corporate member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (UK) since 1976, and of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA, previously RAPI) since 1995. I was elected a Fellow of PIA in 2006, and am a Certified Practising Planner (CPP). I am a member of the Victorian Design Review Panel.

2 My areas of expertise include town planning, urban design and landscape assessment. I have 35 years of experience and have been involved in developing methodologies for landscape assessments, neighbourhood character studies, activity centre planning, urban design frameworks and other planning and design‐related policy projects.

3 My full curriculum vitae is attached in Appendix A.

PLANISPHERE 4 Planisphere is a practice of urban planners, designers and landscape architects. The

practice has developed an expertise in activity centre planning, urban design guidelines, landscape and residential character. Over the last 12 years the consultancy has undertaken numerous studies for the State and Local governments throughout Victoria and interstate. Relevant to this submission are activity centre structure plans, urban design frameworks, design guidelines, built form reviews, neighbourhood character studies and landscape assessment studies, a selection of which is included below:

ACTIVITY CENTRE PLANS, URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORKS & DESIGN GUIDELINES Lilydale MAC Ringwood Transit City Melbourne 2030 Activity Centre Guidelines Moreland Built Form & Public Realm Knox UDFs Croydon Town Centre Megamile MAC & Blackburn NAC Dandenong Green Wedge St Kilda Road Built Form Review Melbourne City Built Form Review Mildura CBD Kingston Green Wedge Warrnambool VIA & Design Guidelines Eltham MAC Yarra River Guidelines Ballarat CBD Strategy & Upper Levels Guidelines LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENTS Nillumbik Murrindindi Baw Baw Wangaratta South West Victoria Victorian coastline Bendigo Great Ocean Road Region Canberra Southern Grampians NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER STUDIES Yarra Ranges Nillumbik Maroondah Drouin & Warragul Monash Knox Whitehorse Frankston Glen Eira Stonnington Mansfield and Benalla Violet Town, Euroa, Nagambie & Avenel



STATEMENT OF FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS 5 In preparing this evidence, I:

Undertook a site survey on 18 July 2013 to review the town centres

Reviewed the contents of the Amendment and documents drafted by Council

6 I propose to present to the Panel Hearing some of the photographs I took on the site visit in a Powerpoint presentation, to illustrate some of the points made in my evidence.

OTHER PERSONS RELIED UPON

7 Tina Ngu, BSocSci (Hons) MPIA, Planisphere planner / urban designer, contributed to the preparation of this evidence. Other members of the Planisphere team contributed to this project. I was the Director responsible for the project.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON 8 DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development) 2002, Melbourne 2030:

Planning for Sustainable Growth

DPCD 2008, Melbourne @ 5 Million

DPCD 2002, Victoria Planning Provisions (relevant sections only)

Planisphere 2008, Vision 2020 by Design: A Built Environment Framework for Yarra Ranges:

Volume I Overview Report

Volume II Character Type Design Guidelines

Volume III Development Type Design Guidelines

Appendices

Relevant sections of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.

INSTRUCTIONS 9 I have been requested by the Yarra Ranges Council to prepare an expert witness

report to assist the Panel in consideration of Amendment C126 to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. I was instructed by emails from the Council on 25 and 28 June 2013 to prepare a witness statement and be available to give evidence at this hearing. My instructions were to explain the methodology used in the Vision 2020 by Design documents prepared by Planisphere, the relationship between the study and the content of Amendment C126, and to respond to relevant issues raised by submitters, and comment on them, recommending changes to the proposed Amendment where I considered this necessary. I was instructed not to respond to individual submissions.

SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS 10 It is my evidence that Amendment C126 is an appropriate adaptation and extension of

relevant parts of the Planisphere study Vision 2020 by Design, expressed in sound and well‐constructed statutory provisions, and I therefore support its incorporation into the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme, subject to the following changes:

Replace the current equivalent provision in DDO 13 with the following Design Guideline: Building heights should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys).



Delete the following Design Guideline in DDO14: New buildings should generally appear as a single storey from the main street frontage and should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys), and replace it with: Building heights should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys).

Delete the following Design Guideline in DDO16: A third level may be permitted where the building is set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street, and replace it with: A third level may be permitted where this will not interrupt views from the main public areas of the centre of the hills or the vegetated backdrop.

Add to DDO17 a provision that the number of vehicle crossovers should be minimised and preferably be on secondary street frontages.

Qualify the building height guideline in each DDO with words along the lines: Building height is the vertical distance between the natural ground level at any point on the site, and the highest point of the building, with the exception of architectural features and building services.



2 AMENDMENT C126 & ITS CONTEXT 11 Amendment C126 to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme is intended to implement

design guidelines for new development in town centres It proposes the following changes to the scheme:

Update the MSS at Clause 21.06 (Built Form) to make reference to the strategic basis of the proposed Design and Development Overlays (DDOs) to guide future development in town centres.

Introduce six additional Schedules (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (DDO) that apply to the town centres of Belgrave, Belgrave South, Coldstream, Kallista, Kilsyth, Healesville, Monbulk, Montrose, Mt Dandenong, Olinda, Sassafras, Seville, Tecoma, Upwey, Wandin North, Warburton, Woori Yallock, Yarra Glen and Yarra Junction.

Insert new Planning Scheme maps to indicate the locations of the proposed DDOs.

C126 EXHIBITION 12 Amendment C126 was formally exhibited from 14 March 2013 to 26 April 2013 with

notices in the local papers and government gazette. Approximately 1500 people were formally notified, including all land owners and occupiers in the areas affected by the proposed DDOs.

SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 13 In response to the exhibition, 72 submissions were received. A majority of the

submitters were residents from Tecoma. The Key Issues section of this report includes responses to issues raised in submissions.

POLICY CONTEXT 14 Please refer to Section 3, in Appendix C: Background Report of Vision 2020 by Design:

Appendices document for the strategic context at the time of the Study. Since the release of Vision 2020 by Design, the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework have been updated. In the following paragraphs, I enlarge on the current policy context for the Amendment.

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 15 In relation to this Amendment, the SPPF provides the following relevant objectives

and considerations:

Settlements

To build up activity centres as a focus for high‐quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres. (Clause 11.01‐1).

To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community. (Clause 11.01‐2)



Undertake strategic planning for the use and development of land in and around the activity centres. (Clause 11.01‐2)

Improve the social, economic and environmental performance and amenity of the centre. (Clause 11.01‐2)

To protect the green wedges of Metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate development. (Clause 11.04‐6)

Ensure strategic planning and land management of each green wedge area to promote and encourage its key features and related values. (Clause 11.04‐6)

Support development in the green wedge that provides for environmental, economic and social benefits. (Clause 11.04‐6)

Consolidate new residential development within existing settlements and in locations where planned services are available and green wedge area values can be protected. (Clause 11.04‐6)

Protect areas of environmental, landscape and scenic value. (Clause 11.04‐6)

Environmental & Landscape Values

Planning should protect sites and features of nature conservation, biodiversity, geological or landscape value. (Clause 12)

To protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments. (Clause 12.04‐2)

Built Environment & Heritage

Planning should ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value. (Clause 15)

To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity. (Clause 15.01‐1)

Require development to respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate. (Clause 15.01‐1)

Require development to include a site analysis and descriptive statement explaining how the proposed development responds to the site and its context. (Clause 15.01‐1)

Development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of its location. (Clause 15.01‐2)

Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or, where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment. (Clause 15.01‐2)

Design of interfaces between buildings and public spaces, including the arrangement of adjoining activities, entrances, windows, and architectural detailing, should enhance the visual and social experience of the user. (Clause 15.01‐2)

New development should respect, but not simply copy, historic precedents and create a worthy legacy for future generations. (Clause 15.01‐2)

Recognition should be given to the setting in which buildings are designed and the integrating role of landscape architecture. (Clause 15.01‐2)



Ensure development responds and contributes to existing sense of place and cultural identity. (Clause 15.01‐5)

Ensure development recognises distinctive urban forms and layout and their relationship to landscape and vegetation. (Clause 15.01‐5)

Ensure development responds to its context and reinforces special characteristics of local environment and place by emphasising:

The underlying natural landscape character.

The heritage values and built form that reflect community identity.

The values, needs and aspirations of the community (Clause 15.01‐5)

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 16 Clause 21 of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme recognises that the Shire contains

come of the most environmentally important areas in Victoria, with a diverse economy of around 10,000 businesses.

17 Clause 21.03 identifies the vision from the Council Plan, and the strategic framework used to guide planning for the Shire. The strategic framework defines the following relevant area designations.

Metropolitan Areas apply to Kilsyth, and described as being generally quite leafy, with some areas of significant vegetation and do not have significant environmental or topographical constraints.

Foothills Areas apply to Belgrave, Tecoma, Upwey and Montrose, and are visually prominent communities when viewed from surrounding areas. They are characterised by an extensive tree canopy, with limited potential for more intensive development.

Rural Townships apply to Coldstream, Seville, Healesville, Wandin North, Warburton, Monbulk, Woori Yallock, Yarra Glen and Yarra Junction. They are separated from urbanised areas, have a distinctive character and serve as important community focal points.

18 Clause 21.04‐2 identifies the following relevant objectives and strategies relating to Commercial land uses:

Provide clear advice about the preferred forms of business development, to reinforce the predominantly rural and green wedge character and image of the Shire.

Protect surrounding residential and rural and green wedge areas from adverse visual and amenity impacts of business encroachment.

19 Clause 21.05 identifies the following relevant objectives and strategies relating to Settlement:

Promote good design and a high quality level of amenity which helps to define and enhance the individual character of each town.

Retain compact townships with their distinct village‐like character and environmental features.

20 Clause 21.06 identifies the following relevant objectives and strategies relating to Built Form:

Encourage the siting and design of development to respond to the characteristics of the site and surrounding area.



Implement performance based controls which promote good design in all types of building construction to ensure that each proposal takes account of the site and its surroundings.

Retain existing architecturally, historically or culturally significant buildings.

Design new development to be compatible with the established character and built form, or with of the surrounding commercial development.

Provide a continuity of retail display windows at ground floor level in the core area of the centre.

Ensure that there is adequate provision for car parking to meet peak needs and provide convenient access to the centre and minimise impacts on adjoining areas.

Locate and design car parking to avoid disruption to continuous retail frontages or impediments to pedestrian circulation within the centre.

Minimise the effect of large expanses of bitumen in car parking areas consisting of more than ten car spaces and include trees or some other form of landscaping to provide some shade in the summer months.



3 VISION 2020 BY DESIGN 21 Planisphere, in conjunction with Planning Collaborative Pty Ltd, was appointed by

Yarra Ranges Council in January 2007 to prepare a Built Environment Framework to guide future development within the municipality. This led to the preparation of Vision 2020 By Design, which was adopted by Council on 14 April 2009.

THE BRIEF 22 The Project brief is detailed in Section 1 of Appendix C: Background Report from the

Vision 2020 By Design: Appendices document.

23 Planisphere’s interpretation of the requirements from the brief were to develop a local planning policies, guidelines and design objectives to ensure that development decisions will address sustainability, and support the Vision 2020 ‘Built Environment’ and ‘Environmental Stewardship’ guiding principles.

24 The key tasks of the study were to:

Provide a comprehensive overview of Council’s strategies, policies, programs and resources influencing the built environment.

Develop an implementation toolkit with environmental and design guidelines used to assess new development proposals.

Provide planning scheme recommendations to implement the Study findings and address the built environment issues.

THE PROCESS 25 Table 1 provides a summary of the Project stages, the consultation undertaken at

each stage and its key outputs.

TABLE 1: STUDY PROCESS SUMMARY

PROJECT STAGE CONSULTATION KEY MILESTONES

1: Scope & Context Steering Committee 1 Scoping discussions

2: Preliminary Built Environment Framework

Steering Committee 2

Staff Workshop

Background report

3: Refined Built Environment Framework

Steering Committee 3 Draft report

4: Draft Toolkit Steering Committee 4 Revised draft report and guidelines

5: Final Report & Toolkit Steering Committee 5 Final report, toolkits & implementation recommendations

CONTENT OF VISION 2020 BY DESIGN 26 The final documents were presented in three volumes with the following elements:

Assessment of the various landscape character types in Yarra Ranges.



Descriptive analysis of the design issues associated with the main types of development that occur in the Shire.

Discussion of issues associated with achieving sustainable design outcomes.

Design guidelines for new development in the Yarra Ranges.

Outline of potential implementation measures.

27 Section 1.2.2 of the Overview Report (Volume I), recommends that Council adopts the following 5 sustainable design imperatives to guide future development:

Sense of Place: New development must add to the character and identity of distinct localities in the Shire.

Protection of Environments: New development must respect and protect sensitive environments, significant landscapes and cultural and natural heritage.

Design Quality: New development must be of high design quality.

Sustainable Urban Form: New development must contribute to environmentally sustainable forms of urban and rural development.

Sustainable Building Design: New development must incorporate best practice in ecologically sustainable building design.

PRIORITY DESIGN ISSUES 28 Section 1.2.4 of The Overview Report (Volume I) identifies priority design issues for the

Shire in areas where pressure for development is considered most intense and where building activity is concentrated. Areas considered to be most highly valued or under threat from on‐going development activity are:

Rural landscapes

Business and commercial areas

Centres of green wedge area settlements

Activity centre residential hinterlands

29 Development types that were considered of greatest concern are:

Urban or industrial style development in Rural Zones

Public realm design in Rural Zones

Most forms of development in Business Zones

Residential development in activity centre hinterlands (Residential Zone)

Relating to landscape and natural features

CHARACTER TYPES & GUIDELINES 30 Based on the identified priority design issues, the following character types were

identified in Section 2.2 of the Overview Report (Volume I), with detailed discussion in Character Type Design Guidelines (Volume II).

Rural Landscape Types Dandenong Ranges

Red Soil Intensive Agricultural

Rolling Agricultural / Bushy Agricultural

Open Valleys

Yarra Ranges Valley

Business & Commercial Area Types Street Based Activity Centres

Mall or Big Boxed Activity Centres

Industrial Areas & Highway Strips



Centres of Green Wedge Settlements Large Rural Township Centres

Smaller Rural Settlement Centres

Dandenong Ranges Hamlet

Residential Area Types Urban Residential Areas

Activity Centre Residential Hinterlands

DEVELOPMENT TYPES AND ISSUES 31 Based on the identified priority design issues, the following development types and

issues were identified in Section 2.3 of the Overview Report (Volume I).

32 Based on the identified priority design issues, the following character types were identified in Section 2.2 of the Overview Report (Volume I), with detailed discussion in Development Type Design Guidelines (Volume III).

Development in Green Wedge Zones Development Types

Public Realm (eg. Highways and Roads)

Development in Business Zones Built Form

Fences, Signs and Parking

Residential Development within Activity Centre Business Zones

Development in Residential Zones Residential Development in Activity Centre Hinterlands (Residential Zones)

Residential Development outside Activity Centre Hinterlands

General Design Issues Vegetation

Urban / Rural Edges and Interfaces

Relating to Streamsides / Open Space Corridors

Landscape Impact Assessment

Significant Views

Building Siting in Open Landscapes

Development on Rural Ridgelines and Hillsides

Materials and Finishes in Rural Environments



4 PROPOSED DDO PROVISIONS 34 Section 4 of the Overview Report (Volume I) recommends a review to the suite of

overlays and other permit triggers with a view to rationalising and improving the effectiveness of controls and policies related to the built environment.

35 The Study recommended that Council adopt six implementation strategies:

Augment the MSS (Municipal Strategic Statement)

Revise / Upgrade Planning Scheme Local Policies

Upgrade Planning Scheme Overlays

Improve Planning Application Processes

Raise Community Awareness

Improve Council Procedures

36 Amendment C126 specifically seeks to address the concerns relating to development in business and commercial areas, where an adopted structure plan or policy has not been developed. The Amendment proposes to implement design objectives through the application of Schedules to the Design and Development Overlays.

37 Practice Note 60 ‘Height and setback controls for activity centres’ notes that the

Design and Development Overlay (DDO) is the preferred planning instrument for implementing discretionary and mandatory building heights and setbacks on a interim basis or at Neighbourhood Activity Centres.

The design objectives and decision guidelines contained within the ... DDO must be well structure and carefully worded to provide clear guidance to both decision makers and designers. This will ensure that any proposal to depart from the nominated heights and setbacks will be able to be rigorously assessed against a clear set of criteria, thereby minimising the likelihood of approval of a proposal which does not implement the design objectives of the ... DDO.

38 Practice Note 10 ‘Writing Schedules’ identifies the following eight principles that apply when drafting and using local contents in a Schedule:

1. Schedules must be read with other planning controls.

2. Local content should help to implement the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

3. Local content should help to implement LPPF objectives.

4. Local content should not duplicate other provisions.

5. Local content can only do what its ‘parent provision’ enables it to do.

6. Local content should be strategically justified.

7. Local content should have a legally certain meaning.

8. Local content should be easy to read.

39 PN10 also outlines the use and preparation of Objectives, stating that

Objectives are key to the interpretation and application of the discretion created by the zone or overlay. All decisions will be tested against them.

... Good objectives have a number of characteristics. They

avoid what is self‐evident and go beyond bland statements that nobody can disagree with

point the way to decision outcomes



are not outcomes in themselves, but can be achieved through a variety of outcomes

respond to significance with local colour and distinctiveness

are grounded in reality, not wishful thinking

do not contradict or confuse other objectives in the planning scheme

have one idea for each objective, not a complex set of ideas.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SCHEDULES 40 Council proposes to introduce six new Schedules to the Design and Development

Overlay (DDO). The drafting of each Schedule is based on the Character Type Design Guidelines (Volume II), with some variations to enable the applications of other guidelines contained in the document. The proposed Schedules are generally structured with the outline explained in Table 2.

TABLE 2: STRUCTURE OF PROPOSED SCHEDULES TO THE DDO

STRUCTURE OF OVERLAY DISCUSSION

Character Statement Provides an outline of the desirable features for the area, and how they will be achieved in relation to new developments.

The character statements from the proposed schedules are generally adapted from the

Design Objectives States the desired outcomes relating to detailed requirements of the Schedule.

Buildings and works not requiring a permit

Lists permit trigger exemptions (standard across proposed Schedules)

Design requirements Lists detailed design requirements addressing the following elements:

Town Centre Character

Landscaping

Interface with public places and residential areas

Car park design

Key redevelopment sites (DDO15 only)

Advertising signs Provides specifications for signs requiring a planning permit

Application requirements Outlines requirements of a development applications

Decision guidelines Sets out matters to be considered before deciding whether an application meets the objectives

41 In summary, the DDOs apply as follows:

DDO12

Applies to the town centres of Healesville, Monbulk, Warburton, Yarra Glen and Yarra Junction.

DDO13

Applies to the town centres of Belgrave South, Coldstream, Montrose, Seville, Tecoma, Upwey, Wandin North and Woori Yallock.



DDO14

Applies to the town centres of Kallista, Mount Dandenong, Olinda and Sassafras.

DDO15

Applies to the town centre of Belgrave

DDO16

Applies to the Kilsyth town centre.

DDO17

Applies to the Mixed Use Zone areas of Coldstream, Woori Yallock and Yarra Junction.

42 In the case of DDO15 (Belgrave), the character statement from this Schedule is generally adapted from the Preferred Character Statement of ‘Street Based Activity Centre’ and material from the Belgrave Town Centre Study. The Design Objectives and Requirements from this Schedule were mainly sourced from Vision 2020 By Design, (Street Based Activity Centre, Large Rural Township Centres and Development in Business Zones) in a similar manner to the others. Some objectives and requirements were also sourced from the Belgrave Town Centre Study, relating to pedestrian links between specific sites (Puffing Billy, supermarkets) and the redevelopment of key sites.



5 KEY ISSUES 43 The key issues I comment on derive from:

The brief I have received from the Council

Issues raised by submitters

Issues raised by the Minister in his conditional authorisation to exhibit

Issues raised by the Panel at the Directions Hearing

44 To assist the Panel, I have bundled this analysis into key issue topics, as follows:

Does Vision 2020 provide a strategic basis for C126?

Genesis of Vision 2020 By Design

General Approach of Vision 2020 By Design

Built Form & Landscape

Building Height & Landscape

Is C126 an appropriate translation of Vision 2020?

Statutory Translation of Vision 2020

Is the DDO the Right Tool?

How much of Vision 2020 By Design is in the DDOs?

Appropriateness of the DDOs to each Location

Level of Detail in the DDOs

The Content of the DDOs

Extent of the Permit Trigger

Source of the Content of the DDOs

Application of the DDOs to Specific Centres

The Design Objectives & Design Guidelines

Are the height provisions justifiable?

Council’s Assessment of Building Height Provisions

The Importance of Building Height

Height & Slope

Does C126 allow sufficient development opportunities?

DOES VISION 2020 PROVIDE A STRATEGIC BASIS FOR C126?

GENESIS OF VISION 2020 BY DESIGN

45 Vision 202o By Design originated as a Built Environment Framework, commissioned to respond to a number of actions proposed in the Council’s Vision 2020 community plan. Originally prepared in 1999, Vision 2020 had been updated twice by the time the Built Environment Framework was commissioned. Table E1 on pages 3‐5 of Vision 2020’s Appendix C: Background Report shows the links between Vision 2020 and Vision 202o By Design.

46 Page 1 of Vision 2020’s Appendix C: Background Report states:



The primary purpose of this project was to develop a framework of local planning policies and guidelines to inform development decisions. The policies and guidelines developed through this project were required to ensure that future development decisions address sustainability and design objectives, and give support to the guiding principles of Vision 2020, particularly those included under the themes of ‘Built Environment’ and ‘Environmental Stewardship’.

47 The brief for the project required it to target the following types of development:

Commercial/business, tourism and industrial;

High density residential and mixed use;

Development in areas subject to environmental, cultural and natural hazard considerations;

Council and community facilities and works.

48 The project was undertaken concurrently with the Council’s LPPF Review, prepared with input from Planisphere.

49 The study area excluded residential locations where ResCode is the predominant decision making tool. The scope of the project was refined during the initial phase to concentrate on areas with the highest value landscapes, and areas most under threat from inappropriate development. It therefore focused on the western one third of the municipality, and excluded the large areas of forest reserve and other public land that occupies the eastern balance of the Shire.

50 This is the first Amendment prepared by the Council to implement Vision 2020 By Design. Amendment C126 takes up the recommendations of the study relating only to town centres, and in particular town centres that have not been the subject of recent comprehensive structure planning work by the Council. [The study’s recommendations cover a broad range of situations, including rural landscapes and residential areas.] The Council’s intent is to provide design guidance for new development in those town centres. I understand that the Council intends to prepare future amendments to implement other study recommendations.

GENERAL APPROACH OF VISION 2020 BY DESIGN

51 Urban and landscape design studies at this scale necessarily adopt a typological approach – that is, they identify common characteristics across a range of separate locations, and produce policy related to each type of location, rather than to every individual location or site. [The land use zoning and overlay systems embodied in the VPPs generalise characteristics in the same way.] The appropriate level of generalisation for a set of typological guidelines is determined by a number of factors, including the geographic coverage of the guidelines, the level of detail appropriate for the planning scheme, and available resources.

52 In this instance, the relevant typologies identified in Vision 2020 By Design were:

Business & Commercial Areas (Metropolitan Area)

Street Based Activity Centres

Mall or Big Box Based Activity Centres

Industrial Areas & Highway Strips

Centres of Green Wedge Settlements

Large Rural Township Centres

Smaller Rural Township Centres

Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres



53 Guidelines for these areas appear in Character Type Design Guidelines (Volume II of the study). The guidelines prepared for each of the area typologies are supplemented by Development Type Design Guidelines (Volume III), grouped by Zone.

54 A number of submissions have commented along the lines that each town should have had a separate DDO, or the guidelines fail to address local characteristics. A typological approach sets out to capture common characteristics relevant to the task in hand, which in this instance is to improve the way development responds to the valued characteristics of different types of activity centre in Yarra Ranges. The essential principle is that the boundaries so defined are appropriately delineated in respect of the desired future character of the area. This task does not require every nuance of difference between every centre to be recorded and reflected in policy.

55 Some other submissions seek preparation of a comprehensive plan for a particular centre, meaning a plan that addresses more issues than just the siting and design of built form. This was beyond the scope of the work Planisphere was commissioned to undertake. Generation of design policies for activity centres through structure planning is often a desirable path to follow, but it is dependent on Council resources and priorities. It is common for smaller activity centres to be subject to general policy provisions, rather than individual, comprehensive structure plans.

56 Assertions that design guidelines are unnecessary and subjective, as one submitter claims, overlook the useful role played by DDO provisions and design guidelines in strengthening sense of place and improving the contextual response of development under the VPPs.

BUILT FORM & LANDSCAPE

57 Vision 2020 By Design describes the significance of the Shire’s landscape in the following terms (Volume I, page 22):

Metropolitan Melbourne is located at the intersection of a variety of distinct landscape types. These include the foothills of the Great Dividing Range, the Western Basalt Plains, the eastern hills and vales that underlie most of Melbourne’s eastern suburbs, the Port Phillip sandbelt, and the coastal areas of Port Phillip.

The Shire of Yarra Ranges comprises a fringe area of metropolitan Melbourne and the most extensive of the 12 Green Wedge areas identified in Melbourne 2030. None of the Growth Areas defined in Melbourne 2030 is located in the Shire. The Council’s Vision 2020 refers to the Shire as ‘a rich mosaic of urban settlements, productive rural holdings, healthy waterways, native bushland and forest’, and as ‘one of the most beautiful natural environments in the nation’.

Yarra Ranges is a municipality that straddles the urban/rural interface in a location where one of the state’s most attractive and significant landscapes meets the edge of the metropolitan area. The landscape itself is a major attraction for residents and visitors, in the form of both forests and mountains and the cultivated, pastoral valleys. Yarra Valley towns such as Healesville and Warburton, are tourist attractions in their own right. Residential areas in the heavily vegetated hills environments have a character that is significant to visitors as well as pleasant to live in.



Therefore the Shire is important, in terms of its landscape and built form character, as an edge of the developed urban area of Melbourne, and as a landscape resource for the metropolitan population as a whole, as well as for its own inhabitants. Along with the Mornington Peninsula, it includes arguably the most attractive scenery to be found in a metropolitan municipality. The Shire is custodian of a landscape that needs to be maintained and enhanced not only as a home for many and a place of agricultural production but also as an escape from the city, as a place of beauty, as an opportunity for recreation, and as a location of continuing attraction to visitors and tourists from a wide catchment.

58 Vision 2020 By Design goes on to describe the evolution of the Shire’s urban fabric (Volume I, page 23)::

Urban development in the Shire includes an extension of the Melbourne suburbs encompassing Mooroolbark, Kilsyth, Chirnside Park and the once separate rural service centre of Lilydale; the ribbon of developed area extending to Belgrave; the small settlements of the Dandenong Ranges; small valley townships like Yarra Glen, Seville and Yarra Junction; and the larger country towns Healesville and Warburton. Rail lines to Lilydale, Healesville and Warburton facilitated the earlier phases of development. From the 1920s, the growth of car use accelerated development in the west of the Shire – numerous buildings survive from this era in the Dandenong Ranges and around Warburton and Healesville.

Typically development of settlements has gradually expanded from a core established in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. Large scale urban expansion east of Lilydale was curtailed with the approval of the Upper Yarra Valley & Dandenong Ranges Region Strategy Plan in 1982.

59 Community responses to the Vision 2020 By Design exercise overwhelmingly highlighted one or both of two key themes:

Environment, including vegetation

Landscape and township character

60 Community values relevant to the current Amendment are summarised in the following quote from page 10 of Vision 2020’s Appendix C: Background Report:

A common opinion expressed was that the Yarra Ranges should not be ‘suburbanised’. Issues of character extended to townships, where it was expressed that the unique character of each township should be retained, and that townships retain their ‘country town feel’. The community also valued traditional street based strip shops, and compact walkable townships rather than urban sprawl. The community valued the fine grain and small scale of built form.

61 A challenge faced by the study was to understand and interpret the meaning of phrases like ‘unique character’ and ‘country town feel’. Examples of the phrases used in the study to respond to this challenge appear in the following Preferred Character Statements (emphasis added):

A backdrop of vegetation will be visible behind the centre, and views of the surrounding hills will be seen from numerous vantage points in public spaces. (Street Based Activity Centres, Vol II, p19)

Large Rural Township Centres (Green Wedge Area) in the Shire will remain classic and attractive country towns because most scenes include substantial trees and views of the surrounding hills or forest. In the centre of town these views can be seen behind buildings; in the residential areas they can also be seen between buildings. (Large Rural Township Centres, Vol II, p27)



Smaller Rural Settlement Centres (Green Wedge Area) in the Shire will retain their non‐urban feel, with the landscape setting their most dominant and attractive characteristic. New buildings will draw on existing forms and maintain existing modest profile of the overall built form. (Smaller Rural Township Centres, Vol II, p29)

The Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres in the Shire will continue to appear as informal collections of buildings, small in scale and somewhat irregularly spaced and aligned, in a forest‐dominated landscape. Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres will be distinctive for the way they sit comfortably within the vegetation and topography of their surrounds, and for the style of development, borrowing from traditional chalet and cottage design, scale, materials and colours. Frequent gaps between buildings will provide views of the surrounding hills and trees and opportunities for informal landscaping to break up the urban form. The feel will be of a scattering of buildings in a forest, an ‘unfinished’ character rather than continuous wall‐to‐wall urban development. (Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres, Vol II, p31)

62 The characteristics referred to in these statements include:

Backdrop of vegetation visible behind buildings

Surrounding hills visible from within the centre

Modest profile of the overall built form/small in scale

Substantial trees in and around the centre

In the Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres, additional characteristics include:

Informal collections of buildings/irregularly spaced and aligned

Chalet/cottage style of development

Frequent gaps between buildings

BUILDING HEIGHT & LANDSCAPE

63 The first three characteristics listed in the previous paragraph each have an implication for building height. Many, though not all, of the centres subject to Amendment C126 have surrounding hills. Most if not all have a backdrop of vegetation, a skyline of tree canopies. What you see from a town centre depends on where you stand. There may be some viewpoints, such as standing under a shop verandah or very close to a building frontage, that preclude a view of the hills or the treed backdrop. The point is that views of the landscape surrounds of the locations subject to C126 are obtainable from numerous vantage points in the centre.

64 Furthermore, the views that are valued by the community arise from the experience of moving around the centres – they are dynamic, not static views. As you move around the centre, views of the surrounding hills and/or vegetation are apparent most of the time. This is not a situation in which the aim is to protect a finite number of static viewpoints. Nor is it a situation in which the aim is to protect ‘glimpses’ of the surrounding landscape. Rather, the aim is to maintain the sense of a centre that sits in a landscape‐dominated setting.

65 Building height plays a vital role in maintaining this characteristic. Building heights need to be kept generally low to maintain this sense of visual connection with the surrounding landscape. It is true that sometimes buildings can be used to frame a view, and that in some circumstances appreciation of a view can be enhanced when it is framed. This is a technique that may have relevance in considering the massing of a particular development proposal. The important point here, though, is the balance



between landscape and urban environments – this is the vital character ingredient. If too much urban development intrudes into or obscures the visual connection with the surrounding landscape, the balance of the centre’s visual character will tip increasingly towards the urban or suburban. From the point of view of community values and good urban design, this is a prospect that sound planning policy should mitigate against.

66 The low ratio of building height to road reservation width is, in and of itself, a familiar characteristic of settlement centres in rural settings. This sense of openness, a ‘wild west stage set’ urban form with single storey and the occasional double storey building, is what we expect to find in a small country town. Three and four storey and above import an urban or metropolitan scale that starts to prejudice this character.

67 The Vision 2020 By Design exercise did not go so far as to prescribe metre height limits for built form, because of its extensive study area and strategic perspective. Design Guidelines in Vision 2020 By Design make reference to building height as follows:

Limit building heights to maintain a dominant presence of views of the landscape surrounding the town (Large Rural Township Centres, Vol II p28).

Limit building heights and bulk to maintain a dominant presence of views of the landscape surrounding the town (Smaller Rural Settlements, Vol II p30).

The Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres Design Guidelines do not include a similar guideline, but the Key Attributes refer to Small scale fine grain of development... (Vol II p31).

68 The question of building height controls is discussed further below.

IS C126 AN APPROPRIATE TRANSLATION OF VISION 2020?

STATUTORY TRANSLATION OF VISION 2020

69 Volume I of Vision 2020 By Design includes Chapter 4 Implementation, which recommends six Implementation Strategies:

Augment the MSS

Revise/Upgrade Planning Scheme Local Policies

Upgrade Planning Scheme Overlays

Improve Planning Application Processes

Raise Community Awareness

Improve Council Procedures

70 The following is a commentary on the way C126 responds to these recommendations:

Augment the MSS: This is partly achieved through changes proposed under Am c126. I understand that a more comprehensive revision of the MSS is proposed to be undertaken by Council later this year.

Revise/Upgrade Planning Scheme Local Policies: The approach taken in Am C126 has been to use the DDO tool rather than rely on Local Policy. I’m advised that, under a forthcoming amendment that will revise the MSS, the Council intends to introduce a new suite of SLOs derived from V2020 by Design, as discussed below. The Council also proposes, as part of the forthcoming amendment, a new Local Policy relating to the adoption of Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD).



Upgrade Planning Scheme Overlays: The proposed SLOs just referred to will replace the current Green Wedge SLOs, and will apply throughout all Green Wedge areas. In the recent past, Amendment C97 (Housing Strategy and neighbourhood Character implementation amendment) introduced new provisions for the residential areas comprising a mix of DDOs and SLOs.

Improve Planning Application Processes: This recommendation largely related to ESD issues, and I understand it will be addressed through the proposed ESD Local Policy referred to above. In the meantime I’m advised that the Council has incorporated ESD consideration and assessment requirements into the DDOs that have been introduced for Major Activity Centres (Amendments C99 and C103).

Raise Community Awareness: My understanding is that this aspect of the recommendations has not yet been prioritised in a comprehensive manner by the Council.

Improve Council Procedures: I’m advised that Council now has an urban design team that designs capital works projects for streetscapes and other public places, and provides input to the planning assessment of key development proposals.

IS THE DDO THE RIGHT TOOL?

71 The Upgrade Planning Scheme Overlays section (Volume I of Vision 2020 By Design p57) states, inter alia:

Within the metropolitan urban area of the Shire, the Council has hitherto made little use of Overlay controls. It is clear to this team that potential exists to consider introduction of Overlays in the following circumstances:

To implement the Neighbourhood Character Study (eg use of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay in specified locations)

To give effect to built form controls in areas of concentrated change such as Activity Centres, most likely through the DDO (Design & Development Overlay)

72 As the last quoted paragraph makes clear, the Planisphere report envisaged application of the DDO to ‘areas of concentrated change such as Activity Centres’. It was not part of Planisphere’s brief to progress this recommendation beyond this general statement. Subsequent development of the C126 DDOs was undertaken in‐house by the Council.

73 Alternatives the Council could have considered include placing the guidelines in:

The MSS

Local Policy

An Incorporated Document

A Reference Document

74 Current practice is towards more succinct MSSs that maintain a strategic, municipality‐wide focus. Department of planning advice in recent years has been to avoid using Local Policy where possible, and it is accorded less weight in Appeal decisions than Overlay Schedule provisions. Incorporated and Reference Documents similarly carry less weight than an Overlay Schedule.

75 The permit requirements of the DDOs could be argued in other circumstances to add to the burden of planning applicants and statutory officers. In the case of C126, this



argument carries little weight. Most of the areas covered by the proposed DDOs are Commercial Zone, which already calls up a Buildings and Works permit trigger. The confined areas of MUZ also trigger a Buildings and Works permit for Section 2 uses. In my opinion, the DDO is the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement these provisions.

HOW MUCH OF VISION 2020 BY DESIGN IS IN THE DDOs? 76 In preparing the DDO Schedules for this amendment, Council drew extensively on

material from Vision 2020 By Design, particularly the Design Guidelines. It appears that the Council made use of the Planisphere material as a starting point, adding to and altering provisions quite extensively in drawing up the DDO Schedules.

77 To test the extent of changes made in translation, we compared the provisions in proposed DDO12 with the Planisphere source material. Overall, the key differences in the provisions of DDO12 compared to the recommendations of Vision 2020 were:

DDO12 adds to the Vision 2020 material:

7.5m building height

Preference for contemporary design styles

Detailed Advertising Sign specifications

A number of specific guidelines (eg planting of additional canopy trees, soft visual screening preferred to hard structures, concealment of roof mounted equipment, car parking to be designed as part of the development)

DDO12 excludes the Vision 2020:

Guidelines on Environmental Sustainability, Heritage and Residential Development within Activity Centre Business Zones

Discouragement of big box structures

I comment on the content of the DDOs in a later section.

78 The following table summarises the main apparent sources of Vision 2020 material used in each DDO.

TABLE 3: SOURCE OF DDO CONTENT FROM VISION 2020 BY DESIGN

SCHEDULE SETTLEMENT TYPES

SETTLEMENTS SOURCE IN VISION 2020

DDO12 Large Rural & Foothills Town Centres

HEALESVILLE

MONBULK

WARBURTON

YARRA JUNCTION

YARRA GLEN

CHARACTER TYPE DESIGN GUIDELINES (VOLUME II)


Street Based Activity Centre

DEVELOPMENT TYPE DESIGN GUIDELINES (VOLUME III)

Development in Business zones

DDO13 Smaller Rural Town Centres

BELGRAVE SOUTH

COLDSTREAM

MONTROSE

SEVILLE

TECOMA

UPWEY

WANDIN NORTH

WOORI YALLOCK








SCHEDULE SETTLEMENT TYPES

SETTLEMENTS SOURCE IN VISION 2020

DDO14 Dandenong Ranges

KALLISTA

MT DANDENONG

OLINDA

SASSAFRAS


Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres



DDO15 Belgrave (street based centre)

BELGRAVE CHARACTER TYPE DESIGN GUIDELINES (VOLUME II)





BELGRAVE TOWN CENTRE STUDY

DDO16 Kilsyth (mall / big box based centre)

KILSYTH CHARACTER TYPE DESIGN GUIDELINES (VOLUME II)





DDO17 Rural Town Mixed Use Areas

COLDSTREAM

WOORI YALLOCK

YARRA JUNCTION







APPROPRIATENESS OF THE DDOs TO EACH LOCATION

79 The following table shows how the Council has adapted the typological categories in Vision 2020 By Design when preparing the DDO Schedules. Among the changes, Council has moved Yarra Glen to Large Rural Township Centres, and moved Belgrave South, Montrose, Tecoma and Upwey from Street Based Activity Centre to Smaller Rural Settlement Centres.

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF TYPOLOGICAL CATEGORIES WITH VISION 2020 BY DESIGN

SCHEDULE CATEGORY NAME FROM VISION 2020

CENTRES REFERRED TO IN THIS DDO; BOLD = CENTRES PLACED IN THIS CATEGORY IN VISION 2020

ADDITIONAL CENTRES PLACED IN THIS CATEGORY IN VISION 2020

DDO12 Large Rural Township Centres

HEALESVILLE

MONBULK

WARBURTON

YARRA JUNCTION

YARRA GLEN

DDO13 Smaller Rural Settlement Centres

BELGRAVE SOUTH

COLDSTREAM

MONTROSE

SEVILLE

TECOMA

UPWEY

WANDIN NORTH

WOORI YALLOCK

LAUNCHING PLACE

MILLGROVE

THE PATCH

SEVILLE EAST

SILVAN

WESBURN

YARRA GLEN



SCHEDULE CATEGORY NAME FROM VISION 2020

CENTRES REFERRED TO IN THIS DDO; BOLD = CENTRES PLACED IN THIS CATEGORY IN VISION 2020

ADDITIONAL CENTRES PLACED IN THIS CATEGORY IN VISION 2020

DDO14 Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres

KALLISTA

MT DANDENONG

OLINDA

SASSAFRAS

KALORAMA

FERNY CREEK

DDO15 Street Based Activity Centre

BELGRAVE BELGRAVE SOUTH

LILYDALE

MONTROSE

MOOROOLBARK

MT EVELYN

TECOMA

UPWEY

DDO16 Mall or Big Box Based Activity Centre

KILSYTH CHIRNSIDE PARK

DDO17 N/A COLDSTREAM

WOORI YALLOCK

YARRA JUNCTION

N/A

80 The Council has explained the changes made to the typological categories as follows:

Yarra Glen was added to the Large Rural Township Centres category as a result of full line supermarket and specialty shop development recently added to the town centre.

Belgrave South, Montrose, Tecoma and Upwey were added into Smaller Rural Settlement Centres to reduce the number of separate DDO’s required and because when it came to drafting guidelines they seemed quite similar

Ferny Creek, Kalorama, Launching Place, Millgrove, Montrose, The Patch, Seville East, Silvan, Wesburn and Yarra Glen were excluded from the DDOs because they only comprise one or two (often not contiguous) Business Zoned properties which were not considered to comprise a ‘town centre’.

Chirnside Park, Lilydale, Mooroolbark and Mt Evelyn are subject to separate structure planning exercises.

Some non‐Commercial parts of Coldstream, Woori Yallock and Yarra Junction are subject to a separate DDO created to reflect design issues for Mixed Use Zone areas adjoining town centre.

LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THE DDOs

81 The Panel has questioned the level of detail in the DDOs. In my view the Council has elaborated on the Vision 2020 By Design content in a way that adds to, rather than detracts from, the original Planisphere work. Council officers took time to tease out the design and development issues that have arisen in each centre, using the Planisphere study as a starting point. The content of the DDOs is comprehensive and relevant in terms of the urban design issues that are addressed, and I would not recommend curtailing this coverage.

82 We have examined the detail of the DDOs to see whether there is scope to reduce repetition between them, and perhaps to consolidate the content. I estimate that about one fifth of the provisions are common to all five DDOs. There are clusters of



similar guidelines under Landscaping, Interface with Public Places and Residential Areas, Car Park Design and Advertising Signs, though in no case is the entirety of the provisions identical for every DDO.

83 In theory it ought to be possible to remove these from each DDO, edit them into a consolidated block of guidelines, and place them in a single location, such as a ‘parent’ DDO or Local Policy. In practice this would require applicants and others to have to cross reference between two parts of the Planning Scheme, instead of being able to find all the design provisions for one centre in one location. Placing the consolidated material in Local Policy might also cause debate at VCAT about the relative weight of DDO and Local Policy provisions. On balance, I favour the convenience for applicants of having the material for each centre in a single location, as currently exhibited.

84 It has not been my brief to examine the wider question of the extent to which the content of the proposed DDOs might duplicate other provisions in the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme, or the extent to which some of the guidelines might (in adapted form) constitute general guidelines for good design that should apply throughout the municipality.

THE CONTENT OF THE DDOs

EXTENT OF PERMIT TRIGGER

85 The permit requirements introduced by C126 would make little or no difference to the extent of permit triggers required under the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. Extensive areas are already covered by Overlays requiring a permit to develop. In addition:

The Commercial Zones already trigger a permit for Buildings and Works.

In the areas of MUZ proposed for inclusion in C126, development is likely to be multi‐unit, and therefore already triggers a permit for development.

Although Clause 53 of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme has now been reviewed in Amendment C97, many if not most forms of development in the Shire already require a planning permit.

SOURCE OF THE CONTENT OF THE DDOs

86 The majority of guidelines sourced from Vision 2020 By Design translated into Amendment C126 originate from the following Vision 2020 components:

Character Type Design Guidelines (Vol II)

Business & Commercial Areas (Metropolitan Area)

Centres of Green Wedge Settlements

Development Type Design Guidelines (Vol III)

Development in Business Zones

Development in Residential Zones

87 The latter focuses in Residential Development in Activity Centre Hinterlands (Residential Zone), which has relevance where the Mixed Use Zone is subject to a proposed DDO. Other material from the Vision 2020 By Design documentation has been used by the Council to inform the drafting of C126, such as the General Design Guidelines in Volume III.



APPLICATION OF THE DDOs TO SPECIFIC CENTRES

88 Some submitters have suggested that particular centres be transferred from one DDO Schedule to another. I do not support this, as it would undermine the typological approach used in the Planisphere study. Possibly the term Rural can be questioned in the Character Statement of DDO13, as it does not relate well to Upwey (as one submitter points out) or, for that matter, Tecoma. However I would argue that the term Rural describes an aspect of the desired character for these two centres in terms of community values.

89 I agree with the submitter who suggests that DDO17: should be consistent with the other DDOs in including a provision that the number of vehicle crossovers should be minimised and preferably be on secondary street frontages.

THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES & DESIGN GUIDELINES

90 The Design Objectives and Design Guidelines are generally appropriate for each of the DDOs. The proposed provisions have their genesis in the Planisphere work, and even though they have been modified and expanded, they are still founded on the essential logic of the Vision 2020 By Design approach. Exceptions to this general conclusion are described at appropriate points in the rest of this evidence.

ARE THE HEIGHT PROVISIONS JUSTIFIABLE? 91 The Vision 2020 By Design exercise did not go so far as to prescribe metre height

controls for built form. It was assumed that the Council would undertake subsequent more detailed analysis to generate the content of proposed DDOs, as has occurred. Design Guidelines in Vision 2020 By Design make reference to building height as follows:

Limit building heights to maintain a dominant presence of views of the landscape surrounding the town (Large Rural Township Centres, Vol II p28).

Limit building heights and bulk to maintain a dominant presence of views of the landscape surrounding the town (Smaller Rural Settlements, Vol II p30).

The Dandenong Ranges Hamlet Centres Design Guidelines do not include a similar guideline, but the Key Attributes refer to Small scale fine grain of development... (Vol II p31).

92 I understand that the Minister’s conditional authorisation to exhibit C126 included the following conditions:

Remove the reference to the height limits, where they are expressed as storeys or metres, from all the Schedules to the Design and Development Overlay and instead include broad design guidelines as expressed in Vision 2020 by Design; or

Undertake further analysis of each town centre to demonstrate that a 2 or 3 storey height limit is an appropriate design outcome that can be included as a design requirement within the Schedules to the Design and Development Overlay to guide future development.

COUNCIL’S ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS

93 In response, the Council has prepared an Assessment of Building Height Provisions, a copy of which appears in Appendix B. This document rehearses the strategic context, and includes some modelled images of 2 and 3 storey building envelopes



superimposed onto two photographs of the centre of Monbulk, and one photograph each of the Yarra Glen, Tecoma and Mt Dandenong centres. In each case, the following situations are illustrated:

Existing situation

Additional 2 storeys above current buildings

Additional single storey above current buildings

Same as previous, but with 3rd storey setback

The first three sets of images also show a mix of single and double storey additions above current buildings.

94 The point of the modelling is to show the different visual impacts of 2 and 3 storey developments, not additions above existing buildings.

95 There are a number of questions one might ask about the accuracy of these images. The modelling has not placed the images into a GIS base, and they do no more than show a ‘best guess’ as to the effect of perspective on the modelled additional floors. The depicted floor‐to‐floor heights for the modelled upper floors are apparently visually estimated at the computer, using the height of the existing single storey building as the yardstick. In this respect, the images probably exaggerate somewhat the height of future 2 and 3 storey buildings, because upper floors have lower ceilings than shops. Nevertheless, the images have some value in highlighting the relationship between built form and tree height.

96 The rationale, in Assessment of Building Height Provisions, of the third storey setback is not entirely convincing, in my opinion. It correctly points out (sixth page) that ‘Vision 2020 By Design states that new buildings should not dominate their street environment, and should be of similar scale, size and height to existing buildings in the area’. The subsequent references to ‘an enclosed and overwhelming character, somewhat akin to claustrophobia’, and ‘less disruptive to...human interaction with the streetscape’, can be improved upon as explanations of the rationale, in my opinion.

97 Higher buildings do change the proportions of a street space – they increase the ratio of ‘street wall’ (the buildings) to ‘street floor’ (the road reservation). Once a majority of buildings in a street space are higher, this can change the character of the street by enhancing the sense of enclosure. Sense of enclosure is a valued characteristic in many European cities and towns, and in streets like Flinders Lane in Melbourne’s CBD. However in Australia and other ‘settled’ countries like the USA, the inverse is often true: sense of spaciousness is the key characteristic of the street space of most smaller towns and settlements. This is a question of preserving ‘sense of place’ as much as it is about access to sunlight, or environmental psychology.

98 Upper level setbacks are a legitimate and proven way of allowing taller buildings, while maintaining the current street space proportions. They work in three‐quarter views along a street, particularly where numbers of taller buildings with upper level setbacks have already been constructed. This situation can be found in a number of Melbourne CBD streets, where the apparent scale of the street is 40m (the historic maximum height in the city), yet towers setback from the facade greatly exceed this height.

99 Upper level setbacks are less successful where the built form will be seen ‘front‐on’, as across a square or a wide street. In such circumstances, the upper level setback has little or no visual effect. Figures 14 and 15 in Assessment of Building Height Provisions illustrate this – there is no material difference between the visual impact of the two



additional storeys from this viewpoint, because the upper level setback is not readily apparent when seen front‐on.

100 Upper level setbacks have a value, but in a small town centre with low rise built form and a wide main street, they will only appreciably mitigate the visual impact of a third floor in some three‐quarter views along the street. Because the existing parapet height is generally single storey in the centres covered by proposed DDOs 12, 13 and 14, two and three storey buildings will be readily apparent from numerous viewpoints in and around a centre. A decision on appropriate building heights should not be made on the assumption that recessed third storeys will be invisible.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING HEIGHT

101 In an earlier section of my evidence I suggest that building height is a vital ingredient of the character of the centres included in C126 because:

The aim is to maintain the sense of a centre that sits in a landscape‐dominated setting.

Many, though not all, of the centres subject to Amendment C126 have surrounding hills.

Most if not all have a backdrop of vegetation, a skyline of tree canopies.

Views of the landscape surrounds of the locations subject to C126 are obtainable from numerous vantage points in the centre.

The views that are valued by the community arise from the experience of moving around the centres – they are dynamic, not static.

Building height plays a vital role in maintaining this characteristic.

Building heights need to be kept generally low to maintain this sense of visual connection with the surrounding landscape.

The low ratio of building height to road reservation width is, in and of itself, a familiar characteristic of settlement centres in rural settings.

102 Most existing buildings in the centres subject to C126 are single storey, and this undoubtedly is a strong component of their character, and the main reason that surrounding topography and vegetation is so apparent. But that does not mean that I would support a single storey height control. The reason is that two storey commercial buildings have formed a part of commercial centres in Victoria since the earliest days of settlement. A typical main street in a country town often includes a sprinkling of two storey buildings, and this is a natural feature of the evolving character of such centres.

103 On the other hand, the rationale I have outlined for the importance of low building height justifies, in my opinion, the Responsible Authority having the ability to call in development proposals that are appreciably higher than the current built form. There are undoubtedly circumstances in which a development exceeding 2 storeys (or about 7.5 metres) may be inappropriate on a particular site in one of the C126 centres. There are also circumstances in which a 2 storey proposal may need to be modified to suit its context, using the Design Guidelines in the DDOs. The Council’s images in its Assessment of Building Height Provisions show how height and massing can undermine or destroy the qualities I believe the planning system should be protecting and strengthening in these centres. I propose to present at the Panel Hearing photographs of my own to illustrate these points.



104 For these reasons, I support the fact that the DDOs:

Require a permit for most Buildings and Works

Set a preferred benchmark height of 7.5 metres

105 I note that the height guideline is expressed differently in the Amendment, as follows

Building heights should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys). (DDO12, 15, 16, 17)

Building heights should not exceed two storeys. (DDO13)

New buildings should generally appear as a single storey from the main street frontage and should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys). (DDO14)

106 My suggestion is that the first of these is an appropriate expression, and should replace the equivalent guidelines in DDOs 13 and 14. In the case of DDO14, I accept that building height is an even more significant issue in the Dandenong Ranges hamlets, but the implied technique of ‘hiding’ the second storey suffers from the drawbacks discussed above. Other guidelines in Schedule 14 provide scope for the Council to obtain modifications to the design and massing of a building.

107 I note that the provisions for third storeys are expressed in DDOs 12, 15 and 16 in the following manner:

A third level may be permitted where the overall height of the building will match that of an adjacent building or where it is set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street. (DDO12)

A third level may be permitted on key redevelopment sites where the overall height of the building will be set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street. (DDO15)

A third level may be permitted where the building is set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street. (DDO16)

108 The common criterion in these provisions is ‘set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street’. Where this criterion is practically realisable, I support it in DDO12, as it addresses the concern I express above – in other words, it deals with the issue of ‘front‐on’ visual impact. The number of sites on which this criterion is capable of being realised may not be large.

109 In the case of DDO15 (Belgrave), a relatively high proportion of the existing built form is 2 storey, and some of this is elevated, so the ‘set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street’ provision is likely to be readily achievable on a higher proportion of sites.

110 In the case of DDO16 (Kilsyth), most if not all of the existing built form is single storey, on a flat site, and able to be viewed from a distance. The more suburban setting of this centre enables it to accommodate higher development in the form of a third storey, and my opinion is that the third storey set back provision could be dispensed with, and replaced with wording along the following lines:

A third level may be permitted where this will not interrupt views from the main public areas of the centre of the hills or the vegetated backdrop.

HEIGHT & SLOPE

111 The Minister’s authorisation included the following comment:



The proposed DDO design guidelines for building heights should be expanded to include a statement about where an increased building height may be appropriate for sloping sites.

112 I support the intent of this comment, and also find merit in the Council’s response. I suggest that the building height guideline should be qualified with words along the following lines, to enable building height to rise as topography rises:

Building height is the vertical distance between the natural ground level at any point on the site, and the highest point of the building, with the exception of architectural features and building services.

DOES C126 ALLOW SUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES? 113 One submission criticises C126 because it.’...does not consider land use issues’. Some

submissions suggest that it should address the question of fast food outlets locating in these centres. Others state that it fails to recognise evolving retail needs. The Minister’s authorisation included the following comment:

Whether the application of the DDO’s will restrict opportunities or have unintended consequences for the future housing and commercial needs of centres ... particularly given the changes proposed under Amendment C97.

114 The main opportunities in commercial/mixed use town centre areas are within the larger urban activity centres of Lilydale (addressed, I understand, under Am C99), Chirnside Park (C103), Mooroolbark (structure plan adopted and amendment being prepared), and Healesville (structure plan being prepared). In relation to housing opportunities, I am advised that most of the Housing opportunity areas are addressed through the zones and overlays introduced under Am C97. In most of the small town centres, very little residential use is likely. The design guidelines for the MUZ areas in DDO17 may if anything have the effect of raising heightened expectation of what can be achieved on these sites.

115 The Amendment is related to land use, in that it explicitly relates to Commercial Zoned centres (plus three MUZ peripheral sites). The purpose of the Amendment, as stated in the Explanatory Report, is to communicate the Council’s design objectives for the future development of town centre areas. The provisions of the Amendment respond to problems that have arisen with the design of development altering valued aspects of town centre character, and undermining other important planning objectives.

116 Flexibility is required to accommodate evolving retail needs that are legitimately provided for in the Planning Scheme. If the provisions of C126 taken as a whole made it impossible to provide these new modes of retailing, it would be rightly judged inappropriate. But this is not the case. The Amendment seeks better design outcomes, different design outcomes in many cases, but it does not prohibit or rule out any particular form of development. None of its provisions are mandatory – the wording of the Design Guidelines makes extensive use of the word ‘should’. In my view, the provisions should be read as painting a picture of the desirable characteristics of design in these centres, not as a sequence of mandatory standards, each of which must be obeyed to the letter.



6 SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 117 It is my evidence that Amendment C126 is an appropriate adaptation and extension of

relevant parts of the Planisphere study Vision 2020 by Design, expressed in sound and well‐constructed statutory provisions, and I therefore support its incorporation into the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme, subject to the following changes:

Replace the current equivalent provision in DDO 13 with the following Design Guideline: Building heights should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys).

Delete the following Design Guideline in DDO14: New buildings should generally appear as a single storey from the main street frontage and should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys), and replace it with: Building heights should not exceed 7.5 metres (two storeys).

Delete the following Design Guideline in DDO16: A third level may be permitted where the building is set back so as not to be easily discernible from the opposite side of the street, and replace it with: A third level may be permitted where this will not interrupt views from the main public areas of the centre of the hills or the vegetated backdrop.

Add to DDO17 a provision that the number of vehicle crossovers should be minimised and preferably be on secondary street frontages.

Qualify the building height guideline in each DDO with words along the lines: Building height is the vertical distance between the natural ground level at any point on the site, and the highest point of the building, with the exception of architectural features and building services.

118 I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Mike Scott BA(Hons)TP FPIA MRTPI CPP 25 July 2013



APPENDICES

A: MIKE SCOTT CV

B: ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Prepared by Shire of Yarra Ranges

MIKE SCOTT BA(Hons)TP, FPIA, MRTPI, CPP

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Mike is a planner, urban designer and communicator whose lifelongpassions are sense of place, streets for people and communityfacilitation. His work, which often pioneers new methods, has beenrecognised with five national Planning Institute awards. His workencompasses strategic planning projects for government and selectedprivate clients, with a strong emphasis on sound project management,clear process design and client/ community ownership.

In a thirty five year career he has been at the forefront in developingmethodology for neighbourhood character studies, urban designframeworks, landscape assessments, activity centre planning and otherplanning and design-related policy projects. His work reflects his deepunderstanding of the built environment, and of the interrelationshipsbetween public and private space and landscape setting.

Mike is frequently called upon to design and manage planning processes andpublic involvement strategies, make presentations and facilitate communityand professional workshops. He is currently a member of the VictorianDesign Review Panel.

MIKE'S MAIN AREAS OF EXPERTISE INCLUDE:

CAREER SYNOPSIS

2001- Director, Planisphere

1995-2001 Director, Mike Scott & Associates

1990-1994 Corporate Manager, Planning &Environment, City of Hawthorn

1988-1990 Director City Strategy, City ofMelbourne

1983-1986 Urban Designer, then Branch HeadLocal Plans, City of Melbourne

1974-1983 Roles as urban designer, bike planner,local planner & regional planner in UK &Australia

QUALIFICATIONS1974 BA (Hons) Town Planning, South Bank

Polytechnic, London

AFFILIATIONSFellow (CPP), Planning Institute ofAustralia (FPIA)

Corporate member, Royal TownPlanning Institute (MRTPI)

AWARDS2012 Greater Dandenong City Council

Gateways Strategy, PIA (Vic)

2011 Melbourne Central City Built FormReview, PIA (Vic)

2008 Wind Farms & Landscape Values:National Assessment Framework, PIA(National)

2006 Coastal Spaces Landscape AssessmentStudy, PIA (National)

2008 Mildura CBD Plan, PIA (Vic)

2008 Lilydale Major Activity Centre UrbanImprovement Project, PIA (Vic)

2008 2008 Vision 2020 By Design: BuiltEnvironment Framework for YarraRanges Shire, PIA (Vic)

2007 Bayside Major Activity Centre StructurePlans, PIA (Vic)

2006 Coastal Spaces Landscape AssessmentStudy, PIA (National)

2005 City of Yarra Built Form Review, PIA(Vic)

2005 Regional Housing Statement Process,PIA (Vic)

APPOINTMENTS2012- Member, Victorian Design Review Panel

(VDRP)

2003-2004 Facilitator, Melbourne 2030 RegionalHousing Working Groups

1986-1990 Member, Committee for Melbourne(ex-officio)

■ Thought leadership in strategic planning & urban design

■ Project management, work programming & process design

■ Facilitating workshops, forums & charettes/ Enquiry by Design

■ Methodology innovation

■ Presentation, committee chairing & public speaking

■ Expert Witness at VCAT & Planning Panels

■ Community engagement & effective communication programs

■ Corporate planning & service reviews

■ Professional mentoring & peer reviews

[email protected] | www.planisphere.com.au

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix A

YARRA RANGES PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C126 TOWN CENTRE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS

ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS Council has prepared Amendment C126 to the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. The amendment proposes to introduce Design and Development Overlays for a number of town centres in Yarra Ranges. These design guidelines will make it easier for potential applicants and other interested parties to understand Council’s design objectives for the future development of town centre areas. The design guidelines will be used in the assessment of planning permit applications and in pre-application discussions with potential planning applicants. The Department of Planning and Community Development has expressed concern about the justification for proposed height limits in the overlays. This report examines the justification for the proposed requirements. 1. Strategic context The Design and Development Overlays for the town centres seek to reconcile potentially competing strategic outcomes. On the one hand there is benefit in concentrating development in town centres to maximise their vitality and access to a range of goods, services and experiences. This would involve increasing building height and bulk to provide the necessary space to accommodate these functions. On the other hand, there is a need to ensure that this built form does not detract from the landscape that is a fundamental element of the character of these towns, and to ensure that the scale of new buildings does not compromise the character and pedestrian scale of the town through impacts such as excessive height, bulk or overshadowing. It is openly recognised that intensification of development in town centres is consistent with both the broad principles of activity centre planning and State planning policy. It is written into the SPPF, and Council acknowledges it in the LPPF. In Clause 21.04-1 Residential, strategies for housing diversity include:

Promote redevelopment and greater housing diversity in fully serviced areas within and around the major activity centres at Lilydale and Chirnside Park and other neighbourhood activity centres that offer convenient access to a wide range of facilities and services including public transport

Strategies for residential accommodation in town centres include:

Encourage shop top housing where the potential exists for residential accommodation to be constructed in conjunction with new retail or business developments and where the resultant building scale is compatible with the local urban character.

Encourage housing in commercial centres and to take advantage of existing infrastructure and under-utilised sites.

In Clause 21.05 Settlement, strategies for sustainable towns include:

Enhance the economic viability, safety and efficiency of the towns

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

Provide for quality retail, commercial and community facilities which cater for consumer needs

Cluster land uses that complement the role and function of the centre

Encourage land uses that will maintain and enhance the viability of the centre

Contain and consolidate existing commercial centres to improve the centres’ convenience to users and minimise any impacts or intrusions into adjoining residential areas or natural environments.

Note that these strategies support housing in as well as near neighbourhood activity centres, shop-top housing in appropriate locations, clustering of land uses and consolidation of commercial centres. Council recognises the justification for intensifying built form in town centres where buildings higher than single storey remain very much the exception. However, there is also a strategic imperative to value and respect the Yarra Ranges landscape. Most Yarra Ranges town centres are located within the Dandenong Ranges, Yarra Valley or Upper Yarra Valley, which have high landscape values. As local planning policy recognises the State imperatives for allowing more intense development in town centres, so too does State policy recognise the value of landscape. Strategies for 12.04-2 Landscape include:

Ensure sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastlines are protected and that new development does not detract from their natural quality.

Recognise the natural landscape for its aesthetic value and as a fully functioning system.

Ensure natural key features are protected and enhanced. Strategies for 15.01-1 Urban Design include:

Require development to respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.

Require development to include a site analysis and descriptive statement explaining how the proposed development responds to the site and its context.

Ensure sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastlines are protected and that new development does not detract from their natural quality.

The principle of design being governed and restrained by its context has been enshrined in guidelines for medium density housing (the Good Design Guide, Rescode) for many years. This principle is particularly important in Yarra Ranges where its rural town centres are located in a landscape context that is typically dominated by canopy trees with a backdrop of wooded hillsides. It is recognised in the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges Regional Strategy Plan (RSP). Clause 13.02 (Commercial Centres) Primary Purpose states:

The primary purpose for the commercial centre policies is to ensure that the future provision of retail and commercial services in the Region achieves a balance between improving consumer choice and convenience, maximising benefits to the retail and commercial industry, conservation of the Region’s environmental qualities, the

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

enhancement of the amenity of living and working environments, improving the retailers’ ability to compete, and increasing employment opportunities within the Region.

It is important to note the reference to balance of the various outcomes, indicating that maximising achievement of a particular desirable outcome will often not be possible in practice. There will be circumstances where the benefits of maximising a particular outcome are not worth the costs in terms of compromising other outcomes. Clause 13.03 Objectives for all Commercial Centres states: Character

Conserve and enhance the unique character of each centre by: encouraging retention of existing worthy older buildings; encouraging renovation and re-use of older buildings; ensuring that the design and height of any new development within each centre is sympathetic to existing buildings, and ensuring that advertisements and signs are consistent with or enhance the character of each centre.

Ensure that buildings harmonise in character and appearance with adjacent buildings and with the character of the area.

The importance of proper design and location of buildings is reflected in Clause 21.06 Built form. Strategies for Objective 1 – Siting and design include:

Encourage the siting and design of development to respond to the characteristics of the site and surrounding area. Develop urban design themes for townships, based on their special character, role and function, and ensure that new development reinforces and consolidates those themes.

Council is committed to recognising and protecting landscape values in the LPPF. In 21.07 Landscape one of the Key Issues is:

The scenic features of the non-urban areas are an integral component of the image and identity of the Shire, and they complement many of the rural and green wedge activities conducted within these areas.

Strategies include:

Protect the rural and green wedge landscapes and forested areas of all non-urban green wedge areas, and ensure that new development complements the established landscape character of significant rural and green wedge landscape areas.

Protect the important open landscape elements and wine growing activities of the Yarra Valley Plains from visual and urban intrusions.

It is policy that:

Any development proposal demonstrate that the proposed buildings and works will not compromise the landscape and environmental qualities of the surrounding area, or substantially change the natural land form. All development be designed and sited to:

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

• Have regard to the built form and to maintain design consistency with surrounding development and avoid detriment to the local environment.

• Recognise the land capability of the site in terms of slope, land subsidence potential, viewlines, enhancement of landscape values, protection of water resources, retention of indigenous flora and fauna and associated wildlife habitats and other local amenity considerations, and so as to be unobtrusive in the surrounding landscape.

The quality of the built environment itself, apart from any impact on landscape, is also recognised in State and local policy. Strategies for Clause 15.01-1 Urban design include:

Promote good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive. Ensure new development or redevelopment contributes to community and cultural life by improving safety, diversity and choice, the quality of living and working environments, accessibility and inclusiveness and environmental sustainability. Require development to respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.

Strategies for 15.01-2 Urban design principles include:

Development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of its location. Planning authorities should emphasise urban design policies and frameworks for key locations or precincts. A comprehensive site analysis should be the starting point of the design process and form the basis for consideration of height, scale and massing of new development. The public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, streets, squares, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced.

It is possible to argue that such policy content is sufficient to allow appropriate decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. However, the very existence of the Design and Development Overlay as a tool within the VPPs recognises that local planning policy will not always be sufficient to deal with particular circumstances. Where there is a common element of concern, and a common factor that will impact on Council’s exercising of its discretion, it is fair and reasonable that this be made clear up-front to applicants and the public. These policies have informed Council’s strategic work, particularly Vision 2020 By Design. In the Overview Report, 2.3 Development types and issues contains the following directions for built form in Business zones:

New buildings should not dominate their street environment. The retention and enhancement of the character and amenity of a commercial area requires new buildings to be of similar scale, size and height to those existing in the area.

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

New buildings should be designed having regard for materials, colours, variations in plan form and roof form in order to reduce the apparent bulk and add visual interest to the appearance of the building.

Vision 2020 By Design recognises the significance of town centre residential development. It has the following to say about ‘high density residential type’:

In the more urbanised towns, there is potential for higher density housing in the town centre. This may be in conjunction with other land uses, such retail or office use, or standalone.

It also recognises this significance under ‘Shop Top Housing / Mixed Use Development’:

Shop top housing is a traditional form of accommodation and its potential is realised by the encouragement of commercial developments which include well-designed residential accommodation at upper levels. Residential accommodation above retail premises brings people into retail and commercial areas beyond normal trading hours, increases the population of urban centres and townships, adds diversity to land uses and makes better use of upper floors.

It is important to note the reference to the potential for higher density housing in the more urbanised towns. A distinction is recognised between those town centres sufficiently urbanised to accommodate such development and those that are considered unsuitable. While recognising the role of more intensive built form in town centres, Vision 2020 By Design also recognises the need to manage built form and prevent its impacts from becoming excessive. In reference to ‘Building height’ it states:

While redevelopment in activity centre residential hinterlands will often result in an increase in height, it is usually practical and desirable to provide a transition in scale that helps to relate the new building to the scale of its surrounds.

In Volume 3 Development Type Design Guidelines, it has the following to say about ‘Building Siting, Scale and Design’:

New buildings should not dominate their street environment. The retention and enhancement of the character and amenity of a commercial area requires new buildings to be of similar scale, size and height to those existing in the area. Design Objective(s) Commercial and industrial buildings should complement the predominant building form in the area and be of high architectural quality. Design Guidelines Buildings should respect and reinforce the form, scale and height of existing buildings in the immediate area.

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

New developments should be designed and sited to complement the specific context in which they site and take account of existing landform, vegetation and historic character.

Apart from landscape considerations, the use of third storey setbacks is central to maintaining quality of built environment. Vision 2020 By Design states that new buildings should not dominate their street environment, and should be of similar scale, size and height to existing buildings in the area. Excessively tall buildings can produce an enclosed and overwhelming character, somewhat akin to claustrophobia. The use of third storey setbacks works on the same principle as the tower/podium format that is frequently used for contemporary high-rise development. The ‘human interface’ – the street frontage – is maintained at a human scale, the two storey limit fitting in with the ‘fine-grain’ proportions of an ideal street environment. The more visually intrusive taller development is shifted back so that it is less disruptive to this human interaction with the streetscape.

2. Different categories of town centres in Yarra Ranges Council in recent years has undertaken detailed structure planning for its main urban activity centres of Lilydale, Chirnside Park and Mooroolbark and this work has informed the preparation of design guidelines and new planning scheme provisions to implement them. Amendment C126 recognises that there is a diversity of town centre types within Yarra Ranges and that limited resources available to Council limit its ability to prepare detailed strategic plans for each of the 19 town centres covered by the amendment. The amendment adopted the approach that most of these centres could be grouped into one of three categories: larger town centres, smaller town centres and Dandenong Ranges town centres. The distinction between larger and smaller town centres, and the different degrees of development envisioned, reflect Council’s adopted Housing Strategy. Healesville, Yarra Glen and Yarra Junction town centres are identified as Consolidation Areas, marking them as suitable for more intensive forms of residential development (Monbulk is included in a Study Area, reflecting the fact that it is considered strategically suitable for such development, but current infrastructure limitations prevent any such development).

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

jeannette

Typewritten Text

However it is important to bear in mind that these town centres are within rural towns and the extent of change and intensity of development anticipated is relatively modest compared with what might be expected in metropolitan urban areas. Smaller centres, by contrast, are identified as Incremental Change Areas or Least Change Areas, indicating that there is even less strategic justification for intensive development in these locations. The Dandenong Ranges category of town centres are even more sensitive to more intensive development which is reflected in the Green Wedge A zoning that applies to the residential areas that they service. In these categories of town centres, there is less justification for compromising the landscape character, so the design guidelines discourage development over 2 storeys in height. The following section of this report illustrates how different building height scenarios would impact on the streetscape character and landscape setting of the 3 main categories town centres that are covered by the DDO’s proposed in Am C126. 3. Larger town centres Monbulk is one of the larger town centres in Yarra Ranges. Its town centre is focussed on a single main street lined by mostly single storey development creating that is visually dominated by nearby canopy trees within a backdrop formed by the wooded slopes of the Dandenong Ranges. On the north side of Main Road, looking west from the south side approximately 80 metres east of Mt Pleasant Road, as depicted in Figure 1, the built form is single storey except for one 2 storey building. There is some landform in the background, but the backdrop is dominated by tall eucalypt trees immediately behind the shop buildings. The visual character is defined by the way in which the built form is proportionally subservient to the vegetation. This character value is reduced if the visual relationship is disrupted. Figure 2 shows how, on the north side, a contiguous 3 storey structure would not obscure the vegetated background, but would substantially intrude on it and reduce the extent to which the vegetation contributes to the character. Figure 3 shows how a contiguous 2 storey form would more in keeping with the existing character. However, it is acknowledged that limiting built form to 2 storeys in larger rural centres is unreasonably restrictive. Figure 4 shows a potential realistic mix of 2 and 3 storey development (contiguous 3 storey form is highly unlikely), which still shows the intrusiveness of 3 storey form. Figure 5 shows potential realistic 3 storey development with the setbacks as proposed in the DDO, demonstrating the extent to which these setbacks can ‘open up’ the vista along the street and reduce the extent to which vegetation and landscape is obscured.

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

The south side of Main Road, looking west from near Mt Pleasant Road, shows a different character, one which is more detrimentally affected by building height. Figure 6 shows a uniformly single storey form, creating a consistent long-low appearance. This is matched by the background landscape which is formed mostly by the landform rather than the vegetation. The visual character is of a built form nestled within its landscape, formed by a built form and landscape background of similar proportions. Figure 7 shows how uniform 3 storey development would obliterate any visual contribution from background landform and vegetation. Even uniform 2 storey development as depicted in Figure 8 would have this effect. On a purely landscape character basis, there would be justification in limiting development to single storey. However, as noted previously, it is acknowledged that this would be unjustifiably

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

restrictive in a centre of this size. Figure 9 shows how a more realistic, non-contiguous 3 storey form would loom substantially above the street. Figure 10 shows the way in which the 3rd storey setbacks as proposed in the DDO would reduce this degree of visual imposition.

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Yarra Glen Yarra Glen has a town centre of similar size to Monbulk. The key features that affect its visual character and relationship with its landscape are a particularly wide main street

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

(approximately 50 metres) and its elevation, rising from floodplain level at either end to a high point approximately in the centre. Figure 11 shows the east side of the Yarra Glen town centre, and how its landscape character is a function of its topography. Figure 12 shows how, as in Monbulk, contiguous 3 storey development would severely affect the rural character of the town by visually separating the town from its landscape setting. Figure 13 shows that 2 storey development would have a lesser impact, allowing some landscape to be visible. A realistic scenario of mixed 2 and 3 storey buildings (Figure 14) would have a substantial blocking effect, but Figure 15 shows how setting back the third storey would reduce this impact to some extent.

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

4. Smaller town centres Tecoma Tecoma town centre is representative of many smaller town centres in Yarra Ranges. Apart from lower total commercial floor space than larger town centres, its significant features are its asymmetric layout (virtually all of the buildings are located on one side of the main street) and a dominant single storey form with a strongly horizontal character. Figure 16 shows the commercial buildings from the opposite (south) side of Burwood Highway. A defining feature is the landscape backdrop, with proportions that are in sympathy with the built proportions of the shop buildings. Figure 17 shows how even development limited to 2 storey would have a serious impact on the visual relationship with this landscape background. Figure 18 shows how 3 storey development would eliminate all visual trace of this landscape and be seriously out of scale with the existing streetscape. Figure 19 shows that a set back third storey would not be sufficient to mitigate these effects.

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

5. Dandenong Ranges town centres Mt Dandenong Dandenong Ranges town centres are distinguished by their small size, in terms of both building scale and total floor space, and the prominence of visually dominant vegetation and landscape in defining their setting. More than in other towns, Dandenong Ranges townships are nestled snugly within a heavily vegetated landscape. Figure 20 shows how the Mt Dandenong town centre is visually defined by the dominant proportions of the vegetation in the immediate background. Figure 21 shows that, while two storey development would not be excessive, it would affect the visible building / visible vegetation ratio and reduce the effect of the built form being nestled within its landscape. Figure 22 shows that three storey development would have severe impact on this landscape character, reducing the built form to something that is no more than beside its landscape rather than within it. Figure 23 shows that a set back third storey would have limited effect in reducing this degree of visual obstruction.

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Such detrimental impacts could be considered acceptable if there was seen to be an overall greater benefit in increasing the intensity and scale of built form. This is acknowledged as being the case in the larger town centres, which have the facilities and services to support intensified development. However, the smaller towns and Dandenong Ranges towns do not offer the sort of capacity or range of services to

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

support more intensive development, so there is insufficient justification for compromising the landscape values that are fundamental to the character of these centres. There is thus no substantial reason to favour, or even consider, three storey development in these centres.

jeannette

Typewritten Text

jeannette

Typewritten Text

Appendix B

jeannette

Typewritten Text

jeannette

Typewritten Text