BHA Submission Taskforce - Barwon Heads Association€¦ · 2 !!!! Barwon!Heads!Association!submission!on!Residential!Zones!!!!! ! implemented the new zones during 2013-2014 was reasonable

1

Barwon Heads Association submission on Residential Zones

14th March 2016 SUBMISSION TO THE MANAGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TASKFORCE ON BEHALF OF THE BARWON HEADS ASSOCIATION PART 1 – INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to make comment. We understand that the new residential zones are statewide, and therefore will never reflect acute local area issues. The current zones in Barwon Heads however don’t match what is here, and certainly don’t appear to meet the stated objectives of the reformed residential zones. We will argue that RDZ should be much smaller, GRZ apply to inner residential Barwon Heads and NRZ apply to residential areas of Barwon Heads. The Geelong Council “CoGG” should identify neighbourhood character & density issues through additional controls and overlays. We are making this submission as our awareness of the impacts of the changes of the residential zones in Barwon Heads dawn on us and we experience the consequences of zonings that are very suited to activity centres, commercial mixed use and former industrial areas, but are totally inappropriate for a small coastal town. Barwon Heads is not a designated growth zone. We are land locked, flat and low lying, surrounded by wetland ecosystems, there are coastal inundation concerns. There is poor public transport and limited services. The school and kindergarten are full. We are not Melbourne or central Geelong. We have chosen to live and work in our coastal village because it is unique. Our township does not have the infrastructure or capacity to absorb this scale of development and we seek an urgent review. The Barwon Heads Association, “the BHA” has about 150 members and close relationships with other groups in Barwon Heads. These are our objectives: -‐ to advance the progress, welfare, and development of the community residing within

Barwon Heads and District -‐ to provide a forum for discussion of matters affecting the community -‐ to represent the community in discussions with Federal, State and Municipal

Governments relating to its progress, welfare and development.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-‐ The disproportionate application of a Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) of 56 hectares of the ‘old Barwon Heads’ is unreasonable in the extreme and fails to acknowledge previous community consultation.

-‐ The BHA does not consider that the process by which CoGG planned and then

2


implemented the new zones during 2013-2014 was reasonable in that they failed to either adequately consult and explain during the process nor inform the Barwon Heads community of the likely consequences of the new zones. The process does not appear to be fair or reasonable. We don’t accept the new zones, and consider them inappropriate for the Barwon Heads township. We repeat our defence of the town boundaries, but don’t consider that this protection of non-urban breaks should then have the consequence of over development within the town and significantly increased densities.

-‐ Barwon Heads does not appear to conform with the criteria that define the purpose and likely application of the RDZ. It is hard to understand how the principles that have been published can be deduced from its application in Barwon Heads. Its application to such a large area has the potential for perverse outcomes.

-‐ Our close proximity to the river and the risk of climate change requires careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of the developments of allowing even a moderate growth of housing and density. We question the ad hoc application of the GRZ and consider that the NRZ would be more appropriate for the residential core of Barwon Heads.

-‐ Clarification of the zones and their implementation with the addition of clear guidelines and controls to protect residential amenity and vegetation is a high priority.

3. BARWON HEADS – PART OF THE CITY OF GREATER GEELONG Barwon Heads is part of the City of Greater Geelong. The Structure Plan clearly identifies unique character of the area, but this new zoning introduces a massive loophole inviting developers to build to a scale that will put at risk the unique coastal character and village feel of Barwon Heads. This uniqueness has been identified in the planning framework we have relied on and been engaged in. This framework includes:

-‐ Bellarine Localised Planning Statement 2015 (BLPS2015) - Barwon Heads Structure Plan 2006-2016 (BHSP2010) - Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan 2006-2016 (BPSP) - Barwon Heads Urban Design Framework Sept 2003 (BH UDF2003) - City of Greater Geelong Residential Character Study 2001 (GRCS2001)

. We have also read with interest G21 Residential Land Supply Monitoring Project June 2015.

Bellarine Localised Planning Statement 2015

“To protect, preserve and enhance built heritage, cultural and urban character values and preserve the individual identity and role of townships.”

-‐ Ensure that development responds to the identity and character of the individual township in which it is located.

-‐ Protect the character of local conservation precincts, places, objects and sites and heritage areas on the Bellarine Peninsula.

-‐ Encourage development, which respects the setting of coastal settlements by providing reasonable sharing of views of the coast and foreshore and uses contemporary design that reflects existing built form.

Barwon Heads Structure Plan 2010 – states: Barwon Heads is not designated as a growth location and is in fact situated between two areas which are strategically supported for further urban development; Ocean Grove and Armstrong Creek. These two locations have long been designated to accommodate the future expected growth in Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula, in order that other smaller coastal towns and sensitive environments can be

3


protected.

Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan (BPSP), developed the following vision for Barwon Heads:

“In the year 2016 Barwon Heads will be a unique, sustainable, residential and environmental hub; a landlocked community surrounded by pristine river, coast and wetlands. An intimate community which supports all age groups and provides a place of belonging for residents and visitors alike; where human impact is managed to support the fragile natural surroundings by: § Clearly defined limitations on urban development § Protecting and nurturing natural surroundings by managing human footprint § Supporting walking, cycling, fishing, sailing, surfing, swimming and generally enjoying

what our coastal village has to offer in an environmentally sensitive way”.

Barwon Heads Urban Design Framework Sept 2003 - Despite experience in undertaking countless studies along similar lines, the study team was overwhelmed by the interest shown in the project by local people. Barwon Heads is a beautiful coastal town. It is also a passionate and strong-willed community, in the very best senses of these terms.

City of Greater Geelong Residential Character Study (August 2001) - The study was prepared for the entire municipality by Planisphere, and identifies seven residential character precincts in Barwon Heads. The community consultation program undertaken as part of the study identified the following community concerns: retaining the coastal lifestyle feel of the town; removal of native and indigenous vegetation; protecting the coastal ecology, wildlife habitats and river environment; maintaining a low scale building form; retaining the ‘quaintness’ of the original settlement area; encouraging and retaining an informal style of public domain streetscape treatments; discouraging large, bulky dwellings with high site coverage and boundary to boundary development.

4


H

DD

O25

DD

O25

Golf Links Road

Hitchcock Avenue

Ozo

ne R

oad

Brid

ge R

oad

Reid Street

Margate Street

Pun

t R

oa

Grove Road

orn

re

et

Geo

rge

Stre

et

Henley Street

Cam

pbel

l S

treet

Ram

sgat

e S

treet

Bel

l re

et

Grandview Parae

Par

ade

Col

ite S

tt

Talb

ot S

tree

t

B1Z

1Z

B1Z

Lege

nd

Busi

ness

zon

es

Des

ign

Dev

elop

men

t Ove

rlay

Her

itage

Ove

rlay

Land

Sub

ject

to In

unda

tion

Ove

rlay

Sign

ifica

nt L

ands

cape

s O

verla

y

Spec

ial B

uild

ing

Ove

rlay

Dev

elop

men

t Con

stra

ints

Des

ign

Con

side

ratio

ns

Hig

h O

ppor

tuni

ty A

rea

Inte

rface

s C

onsi

dere

d

± 010

050

m

HHH

rreeeett

Z

SttZZ GdiP

PPa

t

2

5

4

6

1

3

Bar

won

Hea

ds IH

DA

Opp

ortu

nitie

s1.

Site

s w

ith h

erita

ge v

alue

3. H

erita

ge s

ites

with

opp

ortu

nity

for

rede

velo

pmen

t4.

Her

itage

site

s in

are

as e

xper

ienc

ing

chan

ge

6. S

ites

in e

stab

lishe

d ch

arac

ter a

reas

5. S

ites

with

in s

ignfi

can

t lan

dsca

pe o

verla

y an

d w

ith o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r red

evel

opm

ent

2. H

erita

ge s

ites

in c

omm

unity

use

5


PART 2 – RESPONSE TO TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES WERE IMPLEMENTED

The disproportionate application of a Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) to 56 hectares of the ‘old Barwon Heads’ is unreasonable in the extreme and fails to acknowledge previous community consultation and planning.

The BHA does not consider that the process by which Geelong Council planned and then implemented the new zones during 2013-2014 was reasonable in that they failed to either adequately consult and explain during the process nor inform the Barwon Heads community of the likely consequences of the new zones. The process does not appear to be fair or reasonable. We don’t accept the new zones, and consider them inappropriate for the Barwon Heads town ship. We repeat our defence of the town boundaries, but don’t consider that this protection of non-urban breaks should then have the consequence of over development within the town and significantly increased densities.

We note that the RGZ of Barwon Heads is much larger that Ocean Grove (which is a designated growth area). We look at the map on the previous page and wonder how the boundaries for this zone were reached; streets have different zones on each side. Very strange.

We also question the ad hoc application of GRZ. We are a flat, low lying village. Our close proximity to the river and the risk of climate change requires careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of the developments of allowing even a moderate growth of housing and density. We have significant pockets of indigenous and old vegetation, which are now at risk. Our township does not have the infrastructure or capacity to absorb this scale of development and seeks an urgent review.

This failure of process and engagement with the community might be attributed to a dysfunctional council, and poor relationships between the Barwon Heads community and its representatives. We have a history of poor decisions that have had significant impact on our town. The new Barwon Heads Bridge with its new increased maximum load of 44 tones now results in a significant increase in traffic and in particular large trucks. All now agree the bridge in this location is a mistake. The location of the new kindergarten in parklands also caused significant angst.

Even though we pride ourselves on our knowledge and consider we are informed, the process of introducing the new residential zones has passed us by and there is a disconnect between the new zones, the significant changes and impacts that they have the capacity to make and the process that we understood and relied on. We are now confronted with developments of a scale and use that will set significant precedents and have a significant impact on our village. There is no collective memory or record of the process that resulted in this zoning. In light of the previous work and engagement, it is now negligent of the Geelong Council to allow the intensification of development that these new zones encourage, without appropriate protections and overlays and further community consultation. There are very few overlays in Barwon Heads to protect the environment and the local and coastal feel. We have referred the Taskforce to the Barwon Heads Structure Plan. It appears to us there is

6


a significant disconnect between the new zones and all the work that was put into the Structure Plan. We don’t believe that there has been any new discussion on the key strategic planning issues facing the township, including community aspirations and needs, and we have not had the opportunity to again articulate and confirm the preferred future directions including the location of a settlement boundary and identification of appropriate planning controls. The only beneficiaries of the new zones are developers, not the community. The housing will be expensive and provide even more Airbnb properties for rent (there were hundreds available during the Xmas holidays), and more ad hoc parking in residential streets. Many of the values and standards that have been established are now at risk and being challenged by the new zones.

2. THE CURRENT APPLICATION OF THE ZONES THAT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF BARWON HEADS

Barwon Heads does not appear to conform with the criteria that define the purpose and likely application of the Residential Development Zone “RDZ”. It is hard to understand how the principles that have been published can be deduced from its application in Barwon Heads. Our close proximity to the river and the risk of climate change requires careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of the developments of allowing even a moderate growth of housing and density. We also question the ad hoc application of the General Residential Zone “GRZ” to the rest of Barwon Heads and consider that the Neighbourhood Residential Zone “NRZ” would be more appropriate for some parts of Barwon Heads.

Minutes of CoGG meeting 22nd October 2013:

The reformed residential zones will give more certainty about the type of development that can be expected in any residential area and give Councils better tools to identify areas where existing urban character will be protected and areas where appropriate urban densification can occur. Three new residential zones have been created, each with specific roles:

• Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) – Enables new housing growth and diversity; • General Residential Zone (GRZ) – Respect and preserve urban character while

enabling modest housing growth and housing diversity; and • Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) – Restricts housing growth in areas

identified for urban preservation.

Increased Housing Diversity Areas (IHDA’s) are areas that have been identified due to their proximity to activity centres, train stations and town centres. The IHDA boundaries are based on walkable catchments of either 400m (five minute walk) or 800m (ten minute walk). The existing planning policy acknowledges that neighbourhood character in the Increased Housing Diversity Areas will adapt and evolve over time, particularly within and on the edges of activity centres, where land use and development will intensify.

The CoGG REFORMED RESIDENTIAL ZONES IMPLEMENTATION REPORT - October 2013 defined the new residential zones. We have summarised for Barwon Heads below and added BHA commentary.

7


Barwon Heads has been allocated 2 residential zones. The RGZ applies to a large area (56ha) between the Barwon River, Bridge rd, Golf Links rd and Geelong rd. Only a small section is actually the commercial centre, with most of this designated area is single dwelling residential. (refer to map on page 4). The GRZ applies to the rest mainly the area north of the Geelong Rd.

2.1 Residential Growth Zone RGZ – defined (practice note 78 applying the residential zones) Purpose: Enables new housing growth and diversity in appropriate locations. Likely application: In appropriate locations includes near activities areas, town centres, train stations and other areas suitable for increased housing activity such as smaller strategic redevelopment site. Principles can be deduced from the purposes of the zones:

- Locations offering good access to services, transport and other infrastructure - Areas which provide a transition between areas of more intense use and

development and areas of restricted housing growth - Areas where there is a mature market demand for higher density outcomes.

How does Barwon Heads fit into this zone? Barwon Heads is a small low-lying coastal town, which has never been identified as a growth zone. There are few footpaths, no train services, no good access to public transport and very limited parking capacity. Our school and kindergarten are at capacity. There is considerable concern about the impacts of climate change, inundation and flooding. We don’t have the capacity to service the consequences of this broad zone. The Increased Housing Diversity Area IHDA has been extended far beyond the town centre and incorporates the residential core of old Barwon Heads. (refer to map on page 4). There are no longer any neighbourhood character, landscape or environment restraints. Most of the old part of Barwon Heads has been identified as an opportunity for development. We note the design objective DDO25:

- protect existing views and vistas - enhance established coastal character - provide an attractive, safe, accessible environment - encourage development within the town centre to protect the amenity of surrounding

residential areas The RDZ will not achieve these objectives. There is considerable concern that the ad hoc application of RGZ will ruin the coastal feel of Barwon Heads. The extension of the IHDA boundary beyond the activity area of Hitchcock Ave puts at risk considerable residential character, and the above objectives appear to have no status or impact. THE CRITERIA FOR APPLYING THE RGZ DO NOT FIT IN BARWON HEADS

-‐ Retention of identified neighbourhood character – NO (YES, COASTAL CHARACTER SHOULD NOT REPLACED BY INNER CITY URBAN SCALE OF BUILDINGS)

-‐ Identified area for growth – YES (NOT IDENTIFIED AS A GROWTH AREA) -‐ Existing landscape or environmental character – NO (HAS STRONG COASTAL

FEEL, IS LOW LYING AND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION) -‐ Level of development activity – HIGH (NOT AN AREA OF HIGH DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITY BEFORE THIS NEW ZONE) -‐ Brown field renewal site – YES (NOT A RENEWAL SITE) -‐ Adopted housing strategy – YES (NO) -‐ Identified in activities Area structure plan – YES (MOSTLY NO) -‐ Good options for employment – YES (YES BUT NEED A CAR OR GOOD PUBLIC

8


TRANSPORT) -‐ Good access to shopping – YES (GOOD LOCAL SHOPPING NEED CAR) -‐ Good access to transport choices – YES (POOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

Current example: - The current application for the development of 9 Bridge Rd Barwon Heads highlights the risks, and has been a catalyst for community discussion of the zones and potential impacts. The planning submission is called TOWN PLANNING SUBMISSION FOR A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A GROWTH ZONE OF THE GREATER CITY OF GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME. This is a development for a 3 storey structure with a non-residential area of just under 300m2 at ground level and 3 residential dwellings at first and second floors of around 599m2 plus external boundaries. There is also an application for a reduction in the required car spaces. The current site is a single allotment with a single stand-alone dwelling. This is the first application that we are aware of that will have such a significant impact, and has highlighted the inappropriateness of the of the zone for Barwon Heads. A community outraged, but with little room for objection. An arrogant application, which attempts to extract every drop of blood from the zoning.

2.2 Residential Growth Zone GRZ – defined (practice note 78 applying the residential zones)

Purpose- respects and preserves neighbourhood character while allowing moderate housing growth and diversity

Likely application – in most residential areas where moderate growth and diversity of housing that is consistent with existing neighbourhood character is to be provided

Principles can be deduced from the purposes of the zone –

-‐ Areas with diversity of housing stock, diversity of lot sizes and a more varied neighbourhood character

-‐ Areas where moderate housing growth and housing diversity is encouraged

We note that Geelong Council and many other councils applied this zone throughout as a fall back. Coastal villages are generally unique. Most, especially Barwon Heads attract residents and visitors because of the rare village attributes. Each new development results in incremental change to the character of the area and the village. There are numerous examples of large scale removal of indigenous and significant vegetation, with no requirement to retain or replace vegetation. Our beautiful coastal village is at risk of losing its special feel, and its special trees and other vegetation. Our close proximity to the river and the risk of climate change requires careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of the developments of allowing even a moderate growth of housing and density. 2.3 NRZ restricts housing growth in areas identified for urban preservation, to be

applied in areas where single dwellings prevail and change is not identified, such as areas recognized neighbourhood character, environmental or landscape significance. We are amazed at the limited application of this zone in Geelong. It is the NRZ that appears to us that would work well in Barwon Heads, AND REQUEST THAT THIS ZONE REPLACE THE GRZ for the residential areas of Barwon Heads.

o we seek to RESTRICT HOUSING GROWTH IN AREAS IDENTIFIED FOR URBAN PRESERVATION

9


o more than 80% of lots in Barwon Heads currently accommodate detached dwellings

o there are a few overlays to enable protection and sympathetic development in particular SLO “significant landscape overlay” and LSIO “land subject to inundation”

o there are areas of significant environmental significance, especially in areas closer to the Barwon River and wetlands

o we do not have supporting transport infrastructure, drainage, roads and services for the growth associated with GRZ.

3. ADVISE ON THE LEVEL OF EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION NEEDED WHEN PREPARING RELEVANT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS.

We refer the taskforce to the recent VCAT decision McCarthy v Greater Geelong CC (2016) VCAT 265 (24 February 2016)

Member Harty reversed a decision of the Council and refused a permit for the development of 2 town houses in Taits Rd an area zoned GRZ.

WHAT IS THIS PROCEEDING ABOUT? On 1 June 2015, Greater Geelong City Council resolved to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for two double storey dwellings designed as a duplex development arranged side by side on the review site. Some of the objectors to the application have applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Council decision. The grounds for review relate to the impacts of the development on the neighbourhood and landscape character of the area because of the siting, mass and bulk of the dwellings, removal of all vegetation and lack of landscaping opportunities to soften the development. In reviewing all the submissions put before me, I consider the question to be determined is whether the proposed development is respectful of the neighbourhood and landscape character of the area? The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should apply. Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, I have decided to set aside the decision of the Responsible Authority and direct that no permit is granted. My reasons follow. Neighbourhood and landscape character and relevant planning policy The site is in the General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) which has, amongst others, the purposes of encouraging development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area and to provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport. These purposes are supported by Schedule 2 to the zone which promotes the area within which the site is located as an incremental change area. Local planning policy supports urban growth and consolidation within settlement boundaries. This also applies to urban development within the settlement boundaries of Barwon Heads. Regarding incremental changes areas, there appears to be no specific definition in the planning scheme of what this means. It can be deduced from Clause 21.06-3 – Urban consolidation, that they are areas in the hierarchy of where medium density housing is encouraged that sit behind those identified as Key Development Areas, Increased Housing Diversity Areas (IHDA) and areas in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1). In Barwon Heads, an IDHA is identified under Clause 22.63 affecting the area around the Bridge Road/Hitchcock Avenue activity area and which does not include the site or its surrounding neighbourhood. Another GRZ purpose relates to implementing neighbourhood character policy and adopted guidelines. Mr Munn advised that Council’s 2001 Residential Character Guidelines, which were

10


a reference document in the planning scheme, have been removed[2]. He submitted Council does not have local guidelines to guide a ‘preferred character’. Therefore, proposals must respond to existing neighbourhood character based on a review of the current conditions of the site and surrounds. I agree, and this becomes the foundation for the failure of the proposal. Without the benefit of guidelines that describe the elements of a ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ that a proposed design could respond to in order to promote an incremental change to the character of an area, any design will need to respond to the established character of this part of Taits Road. There is also the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (SLO9) under the planning scheme that recognises the significance of landscape character which affects the site. Under Clause 55.02-1, respecting neighbourhood character does not mean preventing change, but simply means development should be designed in response to its context. This is expanded upon in Clause 21.06-4 – Neighbourhood character which seeks to manage the impact of urban change on existing neighbourhoods, ensure new development responds to existing neighbourhood character and protect areas with a significant garden character. Strategies under the Clause further seek to ensure development is responsive to the established character of the area, support appropriate medium density housing that respects the existing neighbourhood character in the GRZ and retains vegetation wherever possible.

The purpose of the SLO head provision (Clause 42.03) includes conserving and enhancing the character of significant landscapes. Schedule 9 to this Overlay identifies the river environs of the Barwon River estuary as well as the streetscape environs. Of note, Schedule 9 identifies key elements of the landscape relevant to this proposal including dwellings nestled in and not dominating the landscape and having sufficient space between buildings to plant and retain vegetation………………

I have not been persuaded that this proposal responds appropriately to the provisions of the planning scheme and I am not satisfied that the proposal is respectful of the distinctive character of this neighbourhood.

As a consequence of the mass, bulk and scale of the proposal, these dwellings will assume a high degree of visual prominence from the street. Although there are some large dwellings in the street, they represent single rather than multiple dwellings and they retain reasonable side boundary setbacks and front setback space for breaks between buildings and for both retention of vegetation and additional landscaping.

This proposal provides limited opportunities for effective landscaping in the front setback due to space taken up for driveways and pathways. Landscaping along the side boundaries is limited due to lack of space and proposed paving. No tree planting is proposed for the backyard areas and importantly no attempt is proposed to retain the two larger trees at the rear of the site as part of the landscaping outcome.”

We thank Member Harty for this considered decision, he has highlighted the inadequacies of this zone in Barwon Heads and the failure of the Geelong Council to recognise and protect the existing character of the neighbourhood. It is clear that this area (and much of Barwon Heads) actually reflects the features of the NRZ rather than the GRZ.

4. RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

We have looked at the list of suggested improvements to the residential zones, which has been published as part of this review. We understand that this has been collated to reflect many different points of view and has little status. The uncertainty leads to empowering developers and disempowering existing residents. Clarification of the zones and their implementation with the addition of clear guidelines and controls to protect residential amenity and vegetation is a high priority. We attach the list, which includes our comments.

11


5. CONCLUSIONS We note that from a strategic planning best practice viewpoint that “sound strategic planning for residential areas is essential to ensuring that land use and development achieves the desired outcomes in an area”. We now find it difficult to reconcile the new residential zones, in particular RGZ, with any desired outcomes that our community understands and supports. We understand that historically Geelong Council has endorsed our values and aspirations in various documents including the Barwon Heads Structure Plan 2010 and the Bellarine Strategic Plan.

There is increasing concern about how the new zones are being handled by Geelong Council. The new zones, in particular RDZ have provided a reason for them to do nothing to protect the local amenity that is defined in the Structure Plan. There are no residential character guidelines; no apparent interest in protecting the old and indigenous vegetation, and open encouragement of developers to do what they want. Because of this clear lack of recognition of the things that matter in our community it appears to many that the power has been divested by Geelong Council to the local building inspectors, licensed building surveyors and the developers. We look forward to reading your report and request to be heard if there is an opportunity. Sandra Gatehouse President Barwon Heads Association c/- Barwon Heads Post Office Barwon Heads Victoria 3227 0407001055

12


PART 3 BARWON HEADS ASSOCIATION COMMENTS ON LIST OF SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

ITEM Zones Proposed amendment BHA COMMENT Supported/

Not Supported

1

NRZ Increase the NRZ maximum building height limit to 9 metres.

Overrides the NRZ intent NRZ of 2 storeys as 9m indicates 3 stories would be possible Not Supported

2 NRZ

Provide for the maximum number of dwellings in the NRZ to not be less than 2 dwellings.

Overrides the intent of NRZ , 2 or more dwellings would be possible Not Supported

3 NRZ Remove mandatory height requirements (performance based).

Overrides the intent of NRZ Not Supported

4 NRZ Reduce maximum building footprint allowable for a single dwelling.


5 NRZ Prohibit subdivision permit without a

concurrent dwelling planning permit. Strengthen NRZ intent Supported

6

NRZ Review zoning across Melbourne for a more equal distribution of NRZ land.

Review City of Greater Geelong. Townships described as "Activity Centres' that have zero NRZ. Supported

7 NRZ Discourage unoccupied dwellings

(Clause 52.11 Home Occupation). reserve comment to later date

8 NRZ Create maximum lot size. Consequences not clear Not supported

9 NRZ Include Council’s neighbourhood objective in schedule to the NRZ.

Strengthens NRZ intention Supported

10

NRZ

Clarify “appropriate development” (built form, intense development across multiple smaller lots etc.) Amend subdivision loophole allowing for multiple lot subdivision.


11 NRZ Amend subdivision loophole allowing for multiple lot subdivision


12 NRZ

Include a ‘no net dwelling loss’ clause for existing multi units to be redeveloped

reserve comment to later date

13

NRZ

Remove principle under Practice Note 78: ‘Areas where more than 80 percent of lots currently accommodate detached dwellings’. . Supported

14 NRZ Apply maximum building height requirement to all buildings


15

GRZ Introduce a Building Design Guideline criteria for multi-level developments

To encourage the implementation of neighbourhood character policy and adopted guidelines. Supported

13


16 GRZ Require section 1 uses to submit design response.

Development intentions clearer Supported

17

GRZ Amend NRZ and GRZ purpose of zone for clearer distinction:

To encourage the implementation of neighbourhood character policy and adopted guidelines. Supported

18 GRZ Remove the permit trigger of lots under

500m2

Community need to be informed of development intentions Not Supported

19 GRZ

Define “moderate housing growth” to provide clearer direction for Council of expected growth

Community need to be informed of development intentions Supported

20 RGZ

Delete reference to four storey development from the purpose of zone.

Only if this does not result in unlimited height/storeys Supported

21

RGZ

Amend Rescode to trigger the need for assessment for low rise apartments where the provisions within RGZ contradict that of Rescode. Include provisions for ‘as of right’ mixed use applications.


22 RGZ Include provisions for a 'as of right' mixed use applications

Mixed Use is not the intent of GRZ Not Supported

23

RGZ

Apply mandatory boundary of RGZ to be commercial zone or to be within 100m of commercial zone or Activity Centre Zone.

Appears to a contradictory statement Not Supported

24

RGZ

Remove the requirement for locational conditions of section 2: The land must have the same street frontage as the land in the commercial zone.

Intent of 'street frontage' is to contain commercial use to a reasonable loction. Not Supported

25 RGZ

Amend the purpose of the zone provide clarity for underdevelopment of land

Provided 'clarity' does not override the intent of RRZ Supported

26 RGZ Include front setbacks, open space

and wall boundaries requirements. Provided 'clarity' does not override the intent of RGZ Supported

27 RGZ

Remove as of right uses under 250m2


28

RGZ Review of non-residential land uses in residential area which reduce commercial uses beyond the activity centres

Appears this is an attempt to introduce commercial use in residential zones where it would not be allowed under existing zoning. Not Supported

29

RGZ Review of peripheral area for RGZ to avoid conflict of inappropriate commercial development.

The RGZ needs to be restricted to ensure inappropriate commercial development in residential areas Supported

30 RGZ Apply Clause to multi dwellings greater that four storeys

Four storeys is to high in an RGZ Not Supported

14


31 RGZ Provide mechanisms for social/affordable housing A worthy social response Supported

32 RGZ

Review the need for notification/advertisement for certain applications within zone.

Community need to be informed of development intentions Not supported

33 RGZ

Establish urban area infrastructure development contribution scheme for residential areas.

Adequate planning and budget forecast Supported

34 RGZ

Include classification for lot sizes and developments expected to achieve higher density. no comment

35 RGZ

Restrict type of residential development to prevent underdevelopment areas.

Not reasonable to impose minimum density Not Supported

36 RGZ

Prohibit section 2 commercial uses allowed within 100 metres if residential areas in regional locations. no comment Supported

37 RGZ Clearer application of RGZ to direct Council’s on areas of growth. no comment Supported

38 RGZ Provide definition for height

requirements (Clause 32.098).

Clarity and consistency, rather than creative interpretations Supported

39

RGZ

The transitions between RGZ and other residential zones should be more comprehensively addressed in Clause 32.078.


40 RGZ

Include references of relevant policy documents (structure plans and urban design frameworks etc.)

Recognition of previous and current community views needed Supported

41

RGZ

Under Clause 32.079 Application requirements, delete: ! For residential development of five or more storeys, an urban context report and design response as required in Clause 52.35. no comment

42

RGZ

Under Clause 32.0711 Dwelling and residential building, delete: Fore a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development no comment

43 RGZ Prohibit supermarkets in Table of Uses. no comment

44 RGZ Prohibit walls on boundaries at

Council’s discretion


45

RGZ Review schedules to zone to vary daylight to:

Provided the intention of schedule is not weakened. Good building design for healthy humans Not Supported

46 GRZ no comment

15


47

NRZ and GRZ

A permit is required to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of a street if: The fence is associated with 2 or more dwellings on a lot or a residential building, and the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 55.062.


48

NRZ and GRZ

The fence is associated with 2 or more dwellings on a lot or a residential building, and the fence exceeds the maximum height specified in Clause 55.062.


49

NRZ and GRZ

Require physical barrier (e.g. road) between to RGZ and NRZ to ensure the objective of the zones are met. Supported

50

NRZ and GRZ

Clarification of definition for differing natural ground scenarios. Supported

51

NRZ and GRZ

Rename the RGZ and GRZ to avoid confusion between the two acronyms.

administrative matter, no comment Supported

52

NRZ and GRZ

Review conditions associated with Section 1 and 2 uses: no comment

53

NRZ and GRZ

Amend colour differentiation on the zoning map for clarity.

administrative matter, no comment

54

GRZ and RGZ

Vary building heights through zone schedules.

Clarity and consistency, rather than creative interpretations

55

GRZ and RGZ

Prohibit establishment of shops, offices and food and drink premises (subject to floor area limits), within 100 metres of commercial zone with the same road frontage without planning permit.


56

GRZ and RGZ Apply mandatory height limits.


57

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Rename the zones to a neutral naming convention such as A, B, C or 1, 2, 3.

administrative matter, no comment

58

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Update and merge into a consolidated practice note, PN43: Understanding Neighbourhood Character (2001) and PN28: Using the Neighbourhood Character Provision in Planning Schemes (2004) to address neighbourhood character and principles for addressing it in planning schemes in conjunction with PN78: Applying the Residential Zones (2013)

If this results in Clarity and consistency, rather than creative interpretations Supported

16


59

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Review the operation of the schedules and consider consolidation for better clarity for planners and broader community.


60

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Review process and authorization for Councils to apply multiple schedules to address the role and character of different areas.


61

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Review zoning maps so they form relationship to ‘on ground circumstances’. Zones should not change mid street.


62

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Apply schedules to all Council’s across Melbourne.

Does not work for regional or costal townships

63

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Amend the use of land for a Store (section 2 use) to exempt the storage of one motor vehicle. no comment

64

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Allow variation of Rescode requirements through zone schedules.

Unclear what the consequences would be

65

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Amend to include Council’s vision within schedule.

Community kept informed on Councils intentions Supported

66

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Consideration for additional clause for describing: Desired Future Character or Vision for the Area.

Community kept informed on Councils intentions Supported

67

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Provide articulation of the role of each municipality for the provision of housing with greater parameters for application of zones to guide Council’s at local level with any expectations clear and transparent.

Costal townships (egBarwon Heads) should have different zones that recognise their unique attributes Supported

68

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Amend section 1 uses to be subject to building and works controls.

Unclear what of consequences of this suggestion

69

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Specify maintenance of on street parking spaces in zone with provisions with any reduction (crossover) assesse

At present street parking is reduce when each has cross over or when the cross over is increased for a double garage. Supported

70

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Review Practice Notes relating to residential zones for consistency.

Administrative matter. Provided no dilutions of current zone descriptions Supported

17


71

NRZ,GRZ and RGZ

Amend each zone to include level of change expected (minimal/natural/substantial).

Provided the community is well informed during the amendment process. Supported

72 NRZ

Include minimum setbacks from the side or rear boundary (as per A11 and B18/ Building regulation 414).

Will this provide clarity of a planned development? Supported

73 NRZ

Detail side setback requirements (as per A11 and B18/ Building regulation 414).

Will this provide clarity planned development? Supported

74 NRZ Review setback requirements which do

not guide irregular lot sizes. no comment

Documents

BHA Submission Taskforce - Barwon Heads Association€¦ · 2 !!!! Barwon!Heads!Association!submission!on!Residential!Zones!!!!! ! implemented the new zones during 2013-2014 was reasonable