Powered by Council feedback to inform improvement of Victoria Planning Provisions/planning schemes...

Powered by

Council feedback to inform improvement of Victoria Planning Provisions/planning schemesJuly 2015

Powered by

67 responsesIntroduction

The input of all Victorian councils was sought as part of a survey of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) survey conducted by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

We believe that all good systems need to be regularly monitored so that emerging issues can be responded to and resolved. We are also aware of the State Government's pre-election planning commitment to a review of the VPP and seek to provide early input into this process.

The survey data is presented in its raw form with minimal editing. However, the MAV believes the results indicate that the VPP continues to provide a solid framework for planning schemes. The results also highlight that particular attention needs to be paid to:

• Implementing the recommendations of previous reviews such as: advertising signage, heritage, State Planning Policy Framework, helipads, greyhounds.

• Comprehensively examining the overlays to define purpose, reduce overlap, improve clarity and introduce consistency of exemptions and vegetation controls.

• Reconsidering the necessity of many of the particular provisions.

• Reviewing the residential provisions and their connection to the residential zones.

• Reviewing definitions.

• Making operational improvements to incorporated documents.

We hope the results provides a useful starting point to inform reform initiatives.

*Note: it is best to view this report electronically so that the graphs can be enlarged as required.

Powered by

Q2: In your view does the SPPF need improvement?

Powered by

Q3: What particular content themes of the SPPF, if any, give you cause for concern?

Powered by

Q5: Do you have any concerns about the functionality issues below?

Powered by


General

• Many of the themes have weak policy content which makes it difficult to achieve the planning objectives.

• Improvements are needed to the effectiveness and clarity of the content and links to the LPPF, zones, overlays and particular provisions.

• There is a mix of detailed issues and generalised motherhood statements which make the SPPF too long and wordy, disjointed and sometimes contradictory.

• There are too many objectives of equal value.

• Greater use of maps would make it more user friendly.

• The SPPF is inconsistent with the way the MSS’ are required to be written.

• Recent content has been added in an ad hoc way. Need to make sure the SPPF provisions are reviewed regularly so that they are up to date.

• The recent review of the SPPF, to create a Planning Policy Framework, needs to be implemented or a decision made on its future.

Powered by


Climate change/ESD

• Greater coverage of climate change related issues is required to expand beyond coastal/sea level rise to include agriculture & settlement.

• The SPPF needs to have more specific focus on built environment sustainability (ESD).

Regional areas

• The SPPF does not deal well with Regional Victoria and better geographic strategy is required

• Clauses 11 and 16 are Melbourne-centric (apart from the 2014 Regional Framework components). It is nearly impossible to apply any of it to settlements and growth of regional activity centres.

• The majority of the matters listed in clauses 18 and 19 are either not applicable to regional areas (due to lack of public transport) or relate to matters that cannot be addressed at the local level.

• Agriculture should have its own section to raise its profile in the scheme and to help resolve land use conflicts in rural areas.

• The current SPPF doesn't sufficiently support the retention of local character or solutions for population growth and decline.

Powered by


Specific content

• Landfill gas is not covered.

• Clause 14 water quality and conservation policies should be updated in context of climate change and resource extraction (eg coal seam gas)

• Connection between natural resource management and environmental values and economic development, transport and built environment could be improved.

• Clause 16 is weak on strategies for social housing - affordability, diversity and availability

• Consider reference to mobility scooters in transport policy – they are probably used more than bicycles in areas with high proportion of elderly people

• Clause 19 - brings together unrelated types of infrastructure.

• Consider including the Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines series (Landfill) EPA and Best Practice Guidelines Sustainability Victoria in clause 19 Infrastructure.

Powered by

Q7: In your view do MSS' and local policy need improvement?

Powered by

Q8: Do you have any of the concerns below about the functionality of MSS's?

Powered by 11

Q9: How do you suggest improving MSS'?

Connection to SPPF

• A clearer connection between the SPPF and MSS’ is needed to reduce duplication. This might be in the form of the Planning Policy Framework developed in 2014.

Content/connection to zones/overlays

• MSS and LPPs both contain statements of policy. There is a need to distinguish between the purpose of both and ensure a consolidated set of local policies.

• MSS’ should have adequate geographic coverage.

• An MSS should provide assistance about how to how weigh competing up issues.

• The consistency of format of MSS‘ should be improved.

• An MSS must provide clear links to implementation such as zones, overlays and further strategic work.

• MSS’ would be improved by more specific set of aims and objectives.

• Improve connection & consistency between policy guidelines and application triggers.

• MSS policy is required for all topics.

• Tighter controls are needed around what should/can be expressed in the MSS and Local Policy so that it is consistent with SPPF.

Powered by 12

Q9: How do you suggest improving MSS'?

Size

• An MSS should be short and succinct (maximum six pages) with more direction.

• An MSS should be regularly updated to be current (with financial assistance)

Implementation

• It is implementation of MSS’ that reduce their usefulness rather than the tool.

Powered by

Q10: Do you have any concerns below about the functionality of Local Policies?

Powered by 14

Q11: How would you improve Local Policy?

• Local policies need to be clearly linked to a permit trigger.

• Local policies could be merged with the MSS.

• The practice and advisory notes need to be upgraded to state the purpose of local policies given that there are now many things councils should and should not specify with the recently introduced zones.

• Allow greater certainty in policy statements, instead of aspirations.

• Ensure that an MSS is linked to the SPPF clauses and only add additional policy guidance where further local issues/environment necessitate.

• Local Polices that pertain to specific discretions in the scheme are clearly implementable.

• The problem with Local Policy lays not so much with how policy is written, but the weight decision making authorities place on the importance of policy. Give policies more statutory effect rather than just being a ‘guide’ to decision making.

• Condense and simplify.

• There should be some mandatory requirements for local policy such as advertising signage and urban design guidelines.

Powered by

Q12: In your view do any of the zones need improvement?

Powered by

Q13: Identify the zones that you believe are most in need of improvement?

Powered by 17

Q14: Why do the identified zones need improvement?

Concerns

• A comprehensive review should be undertaken to determine whether all zones,

including the reformed zones, are achieving their objectives. A comprehensive review

would allow consideration of whether all zones are required (eg, CDZ, ACZ).

• Greater clarity is needed in the zones about the 1988 Orders in Council exempting

certain ministers from the need to comply with Planning Schemes.

• Residential zones

- Building heights - mandatory heights are not always appropriate or supported

by panels

- NRZ -Needs review about more than two dwellings on a lot . Also contains

loop hole for subdivision

- GRZ - minimum allotment sizes are far to small for townships such as

Strathfieldsaye

- More work is required to monitor, review and refine them. The complementary

zones to these will also need to be reviewed to ensure the suite of zones

provide diversity

Powered by 18


Concerns

• Farming zones

- The purpose to the Farming Zone is contradictory; in that it encourages increased population whilst seeking to retain productive agricultural land

- The FZ is now too broad in its discretion and provides for too much industrial use & business use.

- The FZ allows such a broad range of land uses with minimal guidance on what is appropriate, particularly use and development of dwellings on lots of less than 40ha. It also now has limited guidance on subdivision of FZ land

- The Farming Zone needs tightening up or a new Key Agriculture Zone created to preserve high value land identified in Growth Plans

- FZ and RAZ provisions are so similar that the RAZ should be removed.

- Reintroduce the need for no rural uses to be in conjunction with agriculture, outdoor rec or winery.

- Rural Conservation Zone prohibits the popular types of nature based tourism.

- The need for a permit for an extension or shed is unnecessary once a house exists.

- The rural zones excision provisions are an outdated concept that should be removed.

Powered by 19


Concerns

• Township, Mixed Use and General Residential zones need tidying up for one dwelling on a lot.

• The Township Zone needs more policy guidance on commercial/office development.

• The Mixed Use Zone does not allow for a cap on the size of a shop which means it cannot be effectively used on the edge of a town without comprising the core of the town centre.

• The Commercial Zone 2 is includes too many uses to apply in a rural town context.

• There are too many disparate uses within the SUZ.

• The Public Use Zone is reflective of a time when public utilities were operated by government hands. This is not always the case for services and utilities.

• Warehouse use currently needs a permit in Industrial 2 Zone.

• The Road Zone triggers for a permits should relate to impacts rather than a flat distance. VicRoads need to remove Road Zone when it no longer applies due to re-routing and gazettal changes.

• The Urban Floodway is not appropriate as use should be the underlying basis. Development in the floodplain should be managed by the LSIO and FO with a clause 22 Policy provide guidance on discretion. The UFZ does not differentiate between levels of risk or deal with obstructions such as hedges.

Powered by 20

Q15: Do you have any ideas about what changes should be made to the zones?

Improvements

• All zones need more explicit purposes and the importance of the zone as implementing SPPF and LPPF should be the first purpose then other purposes need to be in clear hierarchy with some purposes being in support rather than all of equal value.

• A clearer connection between the zone purpose and decision guidelines is required and the decision guidelines tightened up.

• More prohibited uses should be introduced.

• Minimum residential block sizes should be able to be different for satellite townships.

• FZ (and RAZ) should be improved by:

• Protecting high quality agricultural land and it should specifically avoid proliferation of dwellings, particularly on small lots.

• Prohibiting subdivision below the minimum lot size, other than re-subdivision of lots. If Council's wish to have areas of rural living (hobby farms) or tourism then they should be made to strategically assess land capability and rezone any unproductive land to RLZ or GWZ rather than allow ad-hoc development in the FZ (and RAZ).

• Recognising different farming situations/types across the state

• Reduce industrial and business uses able to be developed and have less discretionary uses

• Require councils to regularly review and update their application of the Farming Zones.

Powered by 21

Q15: Do you have any ideas about what changes should be made to the zones?

Improvements

• There should be a table to the SUZ similar to that in the PUZ. Classify SUZs into common categories.

• Warehouse use should be as of right in Ind2Z.

• Ensure ‘nature based recreation’ is a permitted use in the RCZ.

• Township, Mixed Use and General Residential under the heading No Permit Required could read 'this permit requirement does not apply to:' or the zones could refer to clause 62 for exemptions

Powered by

Q16: In your view do any of the overlays need improvement?

Powered by

Q17: Identify the overlays that you believe are most in need of improvement?

Powered by

Q18: Why do the identified overlays need improvement?

Concerns

• The use of multiple overlays over sites is an outcome of the shortcomings and

inflexibility of the overlays. For example, on the coast, multiple overlays are required

due to the function of each overlay and permit triggers. Rationalisation is required.

• Many overlays also conflict with each other, for example, the VPO and the BMO.

• The ESO & SLO can easily overlap and it is difficult to determine which is the most

effective overlay. The ESO has become almost a default overlay as it is easier to

justify than some others.

• The SRO and the AEO are overlays that do not trigger a permit this can be

confusing.

• The recommendations of the 2007 review of the Heritage Overlay have not been

implemented. The table in Heritage Overlay schedule is poorly written and confusing.

The schedule has a column with a double negative heading which makes

interpretation difficult and confusing.

• NCOs and DDOs need reviewing in light of recently introduced residential zones. In

some instances, the overlays overlap the new residential zone abilities.

Powered by

Q18: Why do the identified overlays need improvement?

Concerns

• The BMO is still overly complicated to interpret for the lay person and even most consultants have no idea how to interpret or apply the provisions. Practical guidance is required for risk reduction. Exemptions are dotted across different provisions are and difficult to navigate.

• The RCO overlay should be updated to remove roads that no longer exist. A clearer link with is required between road closure processes and removal of the RCO.

• The DPO is a bit of a 'limbo' overlay that doesn't actually trigger a permit and is too restrictive in what can be allowed without a Development Plan in place.

• The difference between flooding overlays is not well understood and seems to serve no particular purpose.

Powered by

Q19: Do you have any ideas about what changes should be made to the overlays?

Improvements

• Undertake a comprehensive review of all overlays to determine whether they are achieving their objectives.

• Reduce double negative approach to permissions.

• Enable more works to be exempted (including exemption conditions)

• Introduce an appropriate planning tool that deals with buffers and incompatible land uses. The ESO has been inappropriately used for this purpose. One approach may be to allow overlays to control use.

• Allow the NCO to control subdivision, fencing, built form, minimum lot size, vegetation protection etc to remove the need to also add DDOs, VPOs and SLOs to the same parcels of land.

• In the BMO the exemptions should be extended to include other 'low risk' applications (i.e. where there is existing development). If there is still some appetite to control such applications then assess them at the building stage. The parent clauses 44.06 could be clearer/simpler. The Schedule could also clearly state the application requirements rather than requiring a Bushfire Management Statement.

• Research and mapping for flooding and coastal sea level rise across the State should be funded.

Powered by


Improvements

• The LSIO could be made more flexible by expanding the floor space allowed before a permit is triggered and increasing exemptions for developments not impeding flood flow.

• Improve consistency between exemptions for ESOs and EMO. The floorspace sizes and terms need to be modernised as most houses are larger than the trigger size.

• Improve SLOs clarity to enable better enforceability of siting, materials and colours of developments.

• Fund work and support ability for councils and water authorities to come to agreement about acceptable levels of development in Potable Water Catchments (including urban areas and subdivisions).

• Provide consistency across all overlays in relation to vegetation removal and exemptions, including dead trees.

• Remove the EAO and make it part of the building regulations.

• Introduce an overlay for Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils.

• Reduce the environmental overlays to one with the objective or purpose of each and its schedule specific about why it is being applied.

Powered by


Improvements

• The AEO should extend to helipads for protection of hospital flight paths which typically use DDO's.

• The SLO need decision guidelines specific to when vegetation removal is the permit trigger.

Powered by

Q20: In your view do any of the particular provisions need improvement?

Powered by

Q21: Identify the particular provisions most in need of improvement?

Powered by

Q22: Why do the identified particular provisions need improvement?

Concerns

• Particular Provisions often prevent local responses and could be replaced with Local Planning Policies.

• Advice is required around clause 52.01Public Open Space. Current provisions seem to limit contributions to new greenfield/brownfield development and do not deal well with intensification of an area.

• Both clause 52.03 and clause 57 trump all other clauses in the scheme but are hidden away in particular provisions.

• The advertising sign advisory committee recommendations have not been implemented. As such clause 52.05 still limits real estate promotion signs in the Residential Zones (eg. Point Cook ) to 2m2. This creates enforcement issues. There is also a discrepancy in the provisions that requires illumination in Category 4 high amenity for signs about historical relevance.

• The land uses listed in clause 52.06 Car parking are too limited.

• The permit trigger and exemption provisions of clauses 52.08 and 52.09 need to be simplified. The assessment of these applications also seems to duplicate the assessment carried out by Earth and Energy Resources.

Powered by


Concerns

• Clause 52.11 Home occupation is too restrictive.

• Clause 52.12 Service stations is out-dated in regard to area size and crossover dimensions.

• Clauses 52.16/17 Native vegetation should refer to 'indigenous‘ vegetation not 'native'. The clauses do not cover stock destruction of vegetation or habitat over time.

• Clauses 52.22, 23 and 24 should be amended to make it clear that a permit is neither required for use and development subject to meeting the requirements in the clauses. Shared Housing is regularly highlighted in VCAT as requiring change as it is ambiguous.

• Clause 52.27 Licenced premises does not sufficiently deal with packaged liquor.

• Clause 52.29 Land adjacent to Road Zone etc requires greater clarity about its objectives and what matters can be considered. -

• Clause 52.34 Bicycle parking is only required on a few occasions and is often sought to be waived.

Powered by


Concerns

• The ResCode provisions (clauses 54, 55 and 56) are long overdue for a review especially with the introduction of the new residential zones, the increase of greenfield development and the resurgence of inner city apartments. There is a gap with development over five storeys as the current Guidelines for Higher Density Development do not have sufficient statutory weight. clause 55 needs additional guidance about orientation and solar access. Clause 56 needs additional guidance about creating larger lots on steeper land, orientation of lots (solar access to private open space is only achievable in limited circumstances) and setbacks from cut and fill to side boundaries.

• The bushfire provisions (clauses 52.47 and 52.48) are still too onerous and complicated. Current exemptions allow for removal of trees in urban areas in rural areas (trees in HOs or VPOs on suburban blocks) this is undermining the ability of councils to protect heritage, biodiversity and character based on justification for bushfire protection that isn't relevant in these areas. Clause 52.47 contains different standards for developments of greater than 10 dwellings vs subdivisions of more than 10 lots. Some developers try to circumvent the higher standards by doing development first followed by subdivision.

Powered by

Q23: Do you have any ideas about changes to the provisions identified?

Improvements

• Provide the ability for a Local Planning Policy to override a Particular Provision, similar to the way

the schedule to the BMO allows for the particular provision to be varied.

• Remove provisions that involve duplication of processes, where there is a Code that must be

complied with, redundant provisions or where a use, such as shared housing, could be dealt with in

the zones and definitions. This might includes 52.08, 52.09, 52.18, 52.19, 52.22, 52,23, 52.24,

52.26 52.27, 52.28, 52.31, 52.40, 52.41 and 52.46.

• Link the controls in 52.03 and 57 with the zones.

• In clause 52.05 Advertising signage allow temporary 'estate promotion signage' in residential areas.

Introduce the signage exemption contained in the UGZ.

• Provide parking rates for more land uses in clause 52.06. To remove ambiguity councils in other

States have rates for a greater variety of uses based on traffic studies/analysis over long periods of

time.

• Amend clause 52.10 Uses with adverse amenity potential to specify that the provisions are to

provide recommended buffer distances rather than prohibit a use if the distance cannot be

achieved, unless the land use table in the Zone specifies it. There has been a VCAT appeal on this

in the past to interpret and clarify the purpose of the clause and its statutory power.

Powered by

Q23: Do you have any ideas about changes to the provisions identified?

Improvements

• Clause 52.11 Home occupation should be amended to increase floorspace and allow non-resident family members as employees. Perhaps the provision relating to maximum Gross Floor Area should be set at a fixed number (i.e.50/100m2) rather than also having the 1/3 of the GFA rule, or the lesser of the two. Include ‘motor repairs’ in the exclusions for clarity.

• Expand area requirements for clause 52.12 Service stations.

• Introduce an Act for native vegetation controls like in South Australia and establish a Native Vegetation Clearance Authority to deal with such applications. Responsible authorities would then consider applications for use and development (not including native vegetation clearance) after the native vegetation clearance has been approved.

• Include guidelines for packaged liquor under clause 52.27

• 52.34 - bicycle parking should be required for more types of development. Cl.55 - the orientation of the lot should be added as a decision guideline understand Standard B29 as it is for Standard B28. Cl.56 - clarify guidance and aims for solar access for lots.

• In clause 52.47 remove residential zoned areas in regional municipalities from the exemptions listed.

Powered by

Q24: In your view do any of the general provisions need improvement?

Powered by

Q25: Identify the general provisions most in need improvement?

Powered by

Q26: Why do the identified general provisions need improvement?

Concerns

• Undertake a comprehensive review of the general provisions

• The clause 62 is written is too legalistic.

• The $1.0 million exemption needs to be fixed as it does not instil confidence in the

system, it leads to conflict and there should be one rule for all.

• The exemptions should be more specific.

• The Existing Uses clause provides little guidance about determining the extent of

any existing use.

• There is confusion about how clause 64 and clause 57 work together.

• If you can only use clause 65 in relation to the permit trigger, the provisions should

state this. There are terms used in the decision guidelines that are not defined in

Land Use Terms.

• Clause 67 is not very clear and appears to have changed over time.

• The exemption for all fences should be revoked as these affect the streetscape

and public realm.

• Referral agencies changed to ‘recommending’ authorities should have

‘determining’ authority status restored.

Powered by

Q26: Do you have any ideas about changes to the clauses you identified?

Improvements

• The Existing Use clause should be rewritten in line with VCAT decisions.

• Consolidate and clarify policy in clause 67.

• Schedule in local flexibility. Rather than waiting for the VPPs to change council's should be able to nominate what doesn't need a permit.

• Clause 64 needs to address the controls in Clause 57.

• Simplify wording and language.

Powered by

Q28: In your view do any of the definitions need improvement?

Powered by

Q29: Which definitions are you are concerned about and why?

Concerns

• There is confusion over some of the accommodation/group accommodation/dwelling definitions. VCAT has raised this in a number of decisions.

• Some of the shop/retail definitions overlap.

• With advertising signage definitions, one sign can meet a multiple definitions.

• There is concern about Caravan Parks and their conversion to permanent residential accommodation.

• The definition of ‘dwelling‘, which is currently based on the Building Act or regulations definition, needs review.

• Other definitions needing review are Dependent persons Unit, Leisure and recreation, Home Occupation, Brothel, Animal keeping and Minor Utility Installation

Powered by

Q30: Do you have any ideas about changes to the definitions you identified?

Improvements

• Land use definitions need to be reviewed and/or updated to reflect newer trends that are occurring.

• One definition is needed for ‘Tourist Camping and Caravan Park’; and one for ‘Residential Caravan Park’. OR, The definition be amended so that it is similar to the definition for Residential Hotel by including the text “for persons away from their normal place of residence”.

• A definition is required for "nature based tourism".

• Clarify what is 'removable' in Dependent person's unit.

• Include reference to commercial repair and service of motor vehicles as being excluded in home occupation definition.

• Improve definition of 'storey'.

• Define what a 'neighbourhood' is in relation to a sewer network.

• Define 'Heliport‘.

• Define local grassroot uses - such as food trucks and community gardens.

• Renewable energy facility should cover wind and geothermal options. Differentiate between domestic and industrial versions.

Powered by

Q31: In your view does clause 81 Incorporated documents need improvement?

Powered by

Q32: Why are you concerned about Incorporated documents?

Concerns

The following concerns relate more to operational concerns about Incorporated Documents rather than clause 81 itself:

• It is difficult to find Incorporated Documents.

• Most Incorporated Documents don’t meet the tests of the Incorporated and Reference Documents Practice Note.

• Planning Scheme Amendments On-line is hard to navigate and is cumbersome when trying to read in conjunction with a planning scheme.

Powered by

Q33: Do you have any ideas about changes to incorporated documents?

Improvements

• Incorporated Documents need to be reviewed and accountability introduced for document owners.

• A central repository on DELWP website for Incorporated Documents is required (separate to Planning Scheme Amendments On-line)

• Planning Schemes On-line should include links to any Incorporated Documents.

• Should be mapped or only applied through the use of an overlay.

• The piggery document and cattlefeed lot documents are outdated and need updating.

• Some basic explanation about what Incorporated Documents are for is required for general readers.

• Combine clauses 80 and 81.

Powered by

Q34: In your view do any of the clauses 90-95 VicSmart need improvement?

Powered by

Q35: Why are you concerned about any of the VicSmart clauses?

Concerns

• The parameters around the VicSmart categories are too restrictive (particularly subdivisions of buildings as they have to been built for five years).

• The VicSmart provisions do not enable the policy framework to be considered in decision making. This has resulted in aspects of councils LPPFs and even the SPPF being made redundant.

• Clarity is required about the consideration of decision guidelines. The issue arose in a recent VCAT Red Dot decision - Johnson v Banyule CC (Incudes Summary) (Red Dot) [2015] VCAT 444 (9 April 2015).

• There is still a lack of clarity about what is and isn't a VicSmart application.

• No real planning benefit is being achieved.

Powered by

Q36: Do you have any ideas about changes to VicSmart provisions?

Improvements

• Expand to include more two lot subdivision applications

• Enable councils to apply the policy framework to some classes of VicSmart applications

• Remove the VicSmart category. If the permits are so simple to assess then they should not require a permit at all.

Powered by Council feedback to inform improvement of Victoria Planning Provisions/planning schemes...

Documents

Transcript of Powered by Council feedback to inform improvement of Victoria Planning Provisions/planning schemes...