Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Cranbourne Town Centre
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Cranbourne Town Centre
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Cranbourne Town Centre 6 June 2018
Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Cranbourne Town Centre 6 June 2018 Michael Ballock, Chair Debra Butcher, Member
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Contents Page 1 Introduction . . 1 1.1 The Amendment . 1 1.2 Panel process . 4 1.3 Background to the proposal . 4 1.4 Summary of issues raised in submissions .
5 1.5 Issues dealt with in this Report . 6 2 Planning context . . 7 2.1 Policy framework . 7 2.2 Planning strategies or policies . 7 2.3 Planning scheme provisions . 8 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes . 8 2.5 Discussion and conclusions . 9 3 Key planning issues . . 10 3.1 Precinct 6: Residential Intensification . 10 3.2 Precinct 9: Cranbourne Racecourse, Entertainment and Tourism . 13 3.3 Bakewell Street . 15 3.4 Transport for Victoria issues . 17 3.5 236 South Gippsland Highway . 19 3.6 Recommendations . 21 4 Other matters . . 22 4.1 Cranbourne Gardens (Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria .
22 4.2 Mapping changes and corrections . 22 4.3 Recommendations . 23 Appendix A Document list Appendix B Panel recommended version of ACZ Schedule 1 List of Tables Page Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing . 4 List of Figures Page Figure 1 The subject land . 2 Figure 2 Precinct 6 . 3
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 List of Abbreviations 2011 Plan Cranbourne Town Centre Plan 2011 ACZ Activity Centre Zone Complex Plan Casey Complex Structure Plan 2011 DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning EAO Environmental Audit Overlay EPA Environment Protection Authority GRZ General Residential Zone Housing Strategy City of Casey Housing Strategy 2017 RGZ Residential Growth Zone Shopping Centre Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre Structure Plan Cranbourne Town Centre Structure Plan 2017 UDF Cranbourne High Street Urban Design Framework 2011 VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Overview Amendment summary The Amendment Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Common name Cranbourne Town Centre Brief description Amendment C204 proposes to amend Schedule 1 to Clause 37.08 (Activity Centre Zone) so that residential areas controls are similar to other residential growth areas. Subject land Cranbourne Town Centre The Proponent City of Casey Planning Authority City of Casey Authorisation By letter dated 14 September 2017 Exhibition 2 November to 5 December 2017 Submissions Number of Submissions: 10 Opposed: 7 - South East Water - Department of Education and Training - APA Group - Justin Pellissier - Graeme Dickson Pty Ltd on behalf of Vicinity Centres - Environment Protection Authority - Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria - Multifield Construction - Transport for Victoria - Best Hooper Lawyers on behalf of ALDI Stores Ltd Panel process The Panel Michael Ballock (Chair), Debra Butcher Directions Hearing City of Casey Municipal Offices 9 April 2018 Panel Hearing Balla Balla Community Centre, Cranbourne East, 7 May 2018 Site inspections Unaccompanied, 9 April 2018 Appearances Refer to Table 1 Citation Casey Planning Scheme PSA C204  PPV Date of this Report 6 June 2018
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Executive summary (i) Summary Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 (the Amendment) seeks to amend the provisions of the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 (ACZ1), in accordance with the Cranbourne Town Centre Structure Plan 2017 (the Structure Plan), so that the residential areas within the Town Centre function in a similar way to other residential growth areas in Casey. These residential areas have been identified as being suitable for more intense residential development, given their “in-centre” location in the Structure Plan and City of Casey Housing Strategy 2017 (the Housing Strategy).
The Amendment includes these areas within ‘Precinct 6: Residential Intensification’ (Precinct 6) of the ACZ1, with heights and setbacks that reflect the provisions of the Residential Growth Zone. The Amendment also proposes consequential changes to the associated local area policies for Cranbourne and Cranbourne East and the Industrial Development Policy in the Local Planning Policy Framework. The Amendment proposes a series of changes to correct zoning and overlay anomalies, fix some minor mapping errors in the ACZ1 and the Structure Plan and fix some grammatical and formatting errors.
The Amendment was prepared following a review of the ACZ1 in mid-2016 which took place as a result of Council identifying some difficulties in administering the ACZ1, particularly for residential development in Precinct 6, largely as a result of the translation of precinct objectives, requirements and guidelines from an earlier version of the Structure Plan into the ACZ1. Submitters were generally supportive of the broader objectives of the Amendment, however had concerns about some of the details of the proposed changes. Particular issues raised by submitters included: • the designation of high density housing adjoining Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre and the need for consideration to be given to ‘reverse onus’ controls being applied to new residential development • concern about some of the commercial land uses that are proposed to be either ‘as of right’ or permissible in Precinct 6 • amenity impacts and the appropriateness of uses which the ACZ1 allows in ‘Precinct 9 Cranbourne Racecourse Tourism & Entertainment’ (Precinct 9) • the proposed open space area generally located at the intersection of High Street and Bakewell Street and concerns about the accompanying need to close off Bakewell Street • lack of guidelines or objectives to address the development around Cranbourne Station as well as the provision of pedestrian and cycling links throughout the Town Centre • the application of the EAO to the eastern portion of 236 South Gippsland Highway which is proposed to be included in the ACZ1.
The Panel has considered all submissions, including those by submitters who did not appear at the Hearing. The Panel concludes that the Amendment is strategically justified and provides
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 an appropriate planning framework for the residential intensification areas in the Cranbourne Town Centre, subject to the changes outlined in this report. (ii) Recommendations Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following: Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay to the eastern portion of 236 South Gippsland Highway, Cranbourne.
Replace the exhibited version of the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 with by the Panel preferred version included at Appendix B.
Replace the exhibited Clauses 21.15, 21.16 and 22.03 with the versions submitted in Document 1 as Attachment I. Amend the exhibited Cranbourne Town Centre Structure Plan 2017 with the following additional changes: a) amend the Precinct Objectives in Section 9.5 by replacing Objective 2 with the following objectives: • to investigate the potential to close off Bakewell Street to through traffic • to establish a central public space on Bakewell Street opposite to and connected with Greg Clydesdale Square • to ensure the closure of Bakewell Street results in a net community benefit for the Activity Centre.
b) Amend ‘Guidelines’ in Section 9.6, by replacing Guideline No. 7 with the following: • New residential development should include acoustic protection from nearby industrial and commercial uses so that emissions of noise from existing industrial and commercial uses comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise form Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1)’.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 1 of 25 Introduction 1.1 The Amendment (i) Amendment description Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 (The Amendment) proposes to amend the provisions of the ACZ1 in accordance with the Structure Plan so that areas identified as primarily residential have been included within Precinct 6 of the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 (ACZ1) and the heights and setbacks have been amended to reflect the intent of the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ).
These are areas which have been identified as being suitable for more intense residential development, given their “in-centre” location in the Structure Plan and the Housing Strategy. Consequential changes have been made to the associated local area policies for Cranbourne and Cranbourne East and the Industrial Development Policy in the Local Planning Policy Framework.
The Amendment proposes to make the following changes to the Casey Planning Scheme: • amend Clause 21.15 Cranbourne to remove reference to commercial zones in the Cranbourne Town Centre and correct the reference to the Structure Plan • amend Clause 21.16 to refer to the Casey Complex and correct the reference to the Structure Plan • amend Clause 22.03 Industrial Development Policy to correct the reference to the Structure Plan • amend Schedule 1 to Clause 37.08 Activity Centre Zone to include sub-precincts 2B, 2E and 4E in Precinct 6 and reduce the number of sub-precincts, reduce the number of sub-precincts in Precincts 3 and 9 and make mapping, typographical, grammatical and formatting corrections.
The Amendment also seeks to correct zoning anomalies by: • rezoning the eastern part of 236 South Gippsland Highway, Cranbourne from a General Residential Zone to an Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 • rezoning the south-western corner of 42-58 Bakewell Street, Cranbourne from an Activity Centre Zone, schedule 1 to a Public Use Zone Schedule 2 • rezoning the western part of 3 New Holland Drive, Cranbourne East from an Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 to a General Residential Zone Schedule 1. The Amendment applies to the land shown in Figure 1.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 2 of 25 Figure 1 The subject land (ii) Purpose of the Amendment The ACZ1 was adopted into the Casey Planning Scheme in March 2015 to implement the Cranbourne Town Centre Structure Plan 2011.
Since the Structure Plan and the Activity Centre Zone provisions were introduced, the Council submitted that the preferred residential intensification areas have not achieved the development results expected. In Council’s view, the details in the ACZ1 which relate to building heights and set-backs were creating confusion, particularly in the way in which centre-wide and precinct specific provisions were applied. Council’s adopted Housing Strategy provides a holistic review of all residential land in the municipality. This strategy identifies that in-centre residential development is the appropriate location for higher density housing.
The Amendment seeks to achieve the intent of the
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 3 of 25 Housing Strategy by applying use and development controls similar to the RGZ to intensive residential areas of the ACZ1 to assist in providing greater clarity as well as housing diversity. Figure 2 Precinct 6 The majority of the changes introduced by the Amendment relate to the revised Precinct 6 which is identified as residential intensification and is displayed in Figure 2.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 4 of 25 1.2 Panel process The Amendment was prepared by the Casey Council as Planning Authority.
As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to: • amend ACZ1 so that residential areas function similar to other residential growth areas • correct zoning anomalies, fix-up mapping, typographical, grammatical and formatting errors and make consequential changes in the ACZ1 and clauses 21.15, 21.16 and 22.03. The Amendment was authorised by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) on 14 September 2017.
The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 2 November to 5 December 2017, with 7 opposing submissions received. At its meeting of 6 March 2018, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 15 March 2018 and comprised Michael Ballock (Chair) and Debra Butcher. A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 9 April 2018. Following the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds. The Panel then met in the Balla Balla Community Centre on 7 May 2018 to hear submissions about the Amendment.
Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1. Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing Submitter Represented by Casey City Council Elena Spanos, Senior Strategic Planner Aldi Stores Pty Ltd Emily Marson of Best Hooper Lawyers Vicinity Centres Ms Meg Lee of Gadens Justin Pellissier 1.3 Background to the proposal Amendment C157 to the Casey Planning Scheme sought to implement the Cranbourne Town Centre Plan 2011 (the 2011 Plan) into the Planning Scheme by introducing the ACZ1. The amendment proposed to rezone all land within the Cranbourne Town Centre to the ACZ1 but excluded the Cranbourne Racecourse and Recreation Reserve, Cranbourne Secondary College, Cranbourne Primary School, Marnebek School, Casey Grammar School and Chisholm Institute.
On 1 July 2013, prior to the gazettal of Amendment C157, the reformed residential and commercial zones were introduced into the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) through amendments V008 and VC100 respectively. The new residential zones were intended “to provide greater clarity about the type of use and development that can be expected in any residential area”, while the new commercial zones were “to provide greater flexibility and growth opportunities for Victoria’s commercial and business centres, responding to the
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 5 of 25 changing retail, commercial and housing markets by allowing for a wider range of uses to support mixed use employment”. Amendment C157 was gazetted on 15 March 2015. However, since then Council has identified some difficulties in administering the ACZ1, particularly for residential development in Precinct 6 largely as a result of the translation of precinct objectives, requirements and guidelines from the 2011 Plan into the ACZ1.
As a result, Council commenced a review of the ACZ1 in mid-2016. The review found that: • the drafting of the ACZ1 has caused some confusion or contradiction between centre- wide objectives and precinct-specific objectives, requirements and guidelines • the ACZ1 has more restrictive provisions than "standard" commercial and residential zones (following the introduction of the reformed residential and commercial zones).
This restrictiveness was not considered appropriate given the strategic context of the Cranbourne Town Centre • Planning Practice Note 56: Application Activity Centre Zone under use of land states that it is “important to ensure consistency between the table of uses in the ACZ and those uses included in other zones such as the Commercial 1 Zone and exempted uses listed at Clause 62.01 of the VPP” • the drafting of Clause 3 to the ACZ1 (table of uses) resulted in some uses being prohibited which should be in Section 2 for example ‘medical centre’ had not been un-nested from office and as a result has been prohibited in Precinct 6 • areas identified as primarily residential in the 2011 Plan were not identified as residential in the ACZ1, even where the table of uses treated them the same way as Precinct 6 which has caused difficulty in assessing residential applications, when precinct objectives and guidelines are aimed toward commercial and retail development • there were minor errors in the mapping throughout the ACZ1 • the primarily formatting and structure of the ACZ1 did not meet some of the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes.
1.4 Summary of issues raised in submissions The key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties are briefly summarised as follows: (i) Planning Authority The key issues for the Council were: • the appropriateness of uses which the ACZ1 allows in Precinct and amenity • the designation of high density housing adjoining Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre • changes to the uses allowed Precinct 6 • including the use for a gym in Precinct 9 • lack of guidelines or objectives to address the provision of cycling links • the location of strategic open space projects
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 6 of 25 • the application of the EAO to land to be included in the ACZ1.
The key issues raised by submitters were: • amenity impacts from late night venues • the proposed open space area generally located at the intersection of High Street and Bakewell Street • a requirement for “reverse onus” controls on new residential development adjoining Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre • as of right conditions for shop in Precinct 6 • the investigation of a road closure at Bakewell Street. 1.5 Issues dealt with in this Report The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing.
The Panel has reviewed a large volume of material. The Panel has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report. This Report deals with the issues under the following headings: • Planning context • Key planning issues • Other matters.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 7 of 25 Planning context Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report and its Part A submission.
The Panel has reviewed Council’s response and the policy context of the Amendment and has made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies. 2.1 Policy framework (i) State Planning Policy Framework Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. The relevant policies that the Panel has had regard to includes: • Clause 11.03-2: Activity centre planning • Clause 15.01-1: Urban design • Clause 15.01-2: Urban design principles • Clause 16.01-1: Integrated housing • Clause 16.01-2: Location of residential development • Clause 16.01-3: Housing opportunity areas • Clause 16.01-4: Housing diversity • Clause 16.01-5: Housing affordability • Clause 18.02-1: Sustainable Personal Transport.
(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework • Clause 21.03: Settlement and Housing • Clause 21.04: Environment • Clause 21.05: Economic development • Clause 21.07: Built environment • Clause 21.15: Cranbourne. 2.2 Planning strategies or policies The Structure Plan was adopted on 2 August 2011 and provides the overarching strategy for the Cranbourne Town Centre, whilst the Cranbourne High Street Urban Design Framework 2011 (the UDF) focuses on the High Street Spine area and the Casey Complex Structure Plan 2011 (the Complex Plan) is specific to the Council owned land at the Casey Complex. The ACZ provisions for Cranbourne were introduced into the Casey Planning Scheme on 19 March 2015 through Amendment C157.
The Amendment introduced the objectives of the Structure Plan, UDF and the Complex Plan.
In addition, the Housing Strategy identifies in-centre areas as being the most appropriate location for diverse higher density residential development because of their access to public transport, employment, community facilities and other services.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 8 of 25 2.3 Planning scheme provisions (i) Zones Council submitted that the Amendment makes proper use of the VPP by making changes to the ACZ1 so that it can better respond and address the purpose of the zone. The Amendment is consistent with Planning Practice Note 56: Activity Centre Zone (PPN56).
The 2011 Plan was adopted by Council and prepared in accordance with the requirements of Planning Practice Note 58: The Amendment proposes to rezone three land parcels, described as zoning anomalies in the Explanatory Report, as follows: • the eastern portion of 236 South Gippsland Highway to be included in the ACZ1 (currently the western portion of the site is already in the ACZ1) • rezoning the south western corner of 42-58 Bakewell Street from the ACZ1 to the Public Use Zone Schedule 2 (Education) • rezoning the western portion of 3 New Holland Drive (which comprises Casey Grammar School) to the General Residential Zone Schedule 1, consistent with the zoning of the eastern portion of the school.
In each case, the rezoning will result in the same zone applying to the entire land parcel rather than having land in two zones. The proposed rezoning will result in minor changes to the boundary of the Activity Centre. (ii) Overlays There are four overlays which apply to land in the Activity Centre, comprising: • various properties throughout the Activity Centre included in the Heritage Overlay • land fronting the South Gippsland Highway (between Stawell Street and the northern extent of the Activity centre) and on the eastern end of Sladen Street affected by the EAO • 14 trees affected by the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 8 - Significant Exotic and Native Trees in Casey • part of 135 South Gippsland Highway affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.
2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes (i) Ministerial Directions Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of: • Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes • Ministerial Direction No. 1: Potentially Contaminated Land • Ministerial Direction No. 9: Metropolitan Planning Strategy • Ministerial Direction No. 11: Strategic Assessment of Amendments.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 9 of 25 Ministerial Direction – The Form and Content of Planning Schemes Council submitted an updated ACZ1 outlining its final position on the Amendment which included changes made to its form and content since authorisation.
Ministerial Direction No. 1: Potentially Contaminated Land Council had reason to believe that, even though the land is not zoned for industrial purpose, the eastern portion of 236 South Gippsland Highway, Cranbourne is potentially contaminated as it has operated as part of the boat sales business for over 10 years. Aerial imagery indicates the land has been used to store goods associated with the business operating on the site. Ministerial Direction No. 9: Metropolitan Planning Strategy Plan Melbourne: 2017-2050 (DELWP 2017) is the Metropolitan Planning Strategy. The Amendment is consistent with the “Outcomes” contained in the strategy.
Therefore, the Amendment has regard to the strategy and the matters outlined in the Ministerial Direction and is consistent with this Direction.
Ministerial Direction No 11: Strategic Assessment of Amendments The Amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the strategic considerations set out in Direction No. 11 and is consistent with those considerations. (ii) Planning Practice Notes Council submitted that the Amendment is consistent with: • Planning Practice Note 1 (PPN1) Applying the Heritage Overlay, January 2018 • Planning Practice Note 46 (PPN46) Strategic Assessment Guidelines, June 2015 • Planning Practice Note 56 (PPN56): Activity Centre Zone, June 2015 • Planning Practice Note 58 (PPN58): Structure Planning for Activity Centres, June 2015 • Planning Practice Note 59 (PPN59) The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes, June 2015.
2.5 Discussion and conclusions The basis for the amendment is well established in the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks as well as the more detailed Structure Plan. Substantial guidance is available from a number of Planning Practice Notes and the Panel acknowledges that the Amendment is consistent with PPN56 which is particularly relevant. The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes. The Amendment is well founded and strategically justified, and the Amendment should proceed subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in the following chapters.
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 10 of 25 Key planning issues 3.1 Precinct 6: Residential Intensification 3.1.1 The issues There were two key issues raised in relation to Precinct 6 in the ACZ1 that were addressed at the Hearing: • Whether the designation of an area for higher density housing adjoining the western boundary of Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre is appropriate in the context of potential amenity impacts and, if it is, whether the ACZ1 should be further reviewed to better manage potential amenity impacts through ‘reverse onus’ controls to apply to future residential development proposals • Whether changes to the uses allowed in Precinct 6, in particular in relation to ‘shop’ and ‘office’, are appropriate and/or necessary.
3.1.2 Submissions (i) Issue 1 – Higher density housing and reverse onus controls In relation to the designation of a higher density housing area adjoining Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre (the Shopping Centre), it was Council’s submission that the designation was appropriate and consistent with State and Local Policy and Council’s Housing Strategy. However, Council accepted that there might be a need for additional measures to be implemented in the AC1Z to address potential amenity impacts to higher density residential development that abut the service areas and loading facilities located along the western boundary of the Shopping Centre.
Council submitted that further changes to the ACZ1 could adequately address this matter. The changes included in Document 1, Attachments I and J proposed additional wording requiring that: • new residential development adjoining Precinct 4, which includes the Shopping Centre, should include acoustic protection from nearby industrial and commercial land uses • additional application requirements for land in Precinct 6, whereby applications for a dwelling adjoining Precincts 1, 3, 4 and 8 must demonstrate how the proposal includes acoustic protection.
Ms Lee, on behalf of Vicinity Centres (Vicinity), did not contest the designation of the land abutting the west boundary of the Shopping Centre for higher density housing.
However, she advised that, whilst Council’s changes had gone some way towards addressing Vicinity’s concerns about acoustic issues, its view was that some additional changes were still required. Vicinity submitted that the ‘agent of change’ principle should apply to new residential development. The submission outlined the relevant requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 (SEPP N-1).
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 11 of 25 Vicinity noted that, as a result of a recent permit that issued for the Shopping Centre, a 3 metre high acoustic fence had been constructed along the western site boundary and acoustic lining applied to the roof of loading bays, to ensure the ground level noise levels at nearby dwellings complied with SEPP N-1. Vicinity also confirmed that as a result of the most recent planning permit, the loading docks now have time restrictions within which they must operate, to further minimise noise impacts to neighbouring development.
Referring to the requirements of SEPPN-1, Vicinity Centres proposed a series of additional suggested changes (Document 5) to the ACZ1 and the 2017 Structure Plan in relation to acoustic issues and Precinct 6.
Council submitted that it was willing to accept some of these changes and, in response, proposed further changes to the wording. These further changes which were mostly accepted by Vicinity. However, the parties did not agree whether the changes to the Precinct Guidelines at Clause 5.6-4 should relate to development of two storeys proposed by Vicinity or three storeys and above as submitted by Council. Council did not support Vicinity’s suggested inclusion of a requirement at Clause 6.0 Application Requirements to provide an acoustic report. In relation to this issue, Council re- iterated that it did not believe an acoustic report was necessary to demonstrate that acoustic concerns had been appropriately addressed.
(ii) Issue 2 – Changes to the use provisions in relation to ‘shop’ and ‘office’ The issue of the inclusion of ‘shop’ and ‘office’ as ‘as of right’ uses in Precinct 6 (or Section 2 uses with no floorspace limit) was raised by Vicinity in its submission to the exhibited Amendment. Vicinity submitted that that the inclusion of such uses could provide the opportunity for the uses to locate in the designated residential intensification areas, including at the western entrance to the Shopping Centre, on lots that front Cranbourne Drive. Council submitted that the changes made to include ‘shop’ and ‘office’ as Section 1 and 2 uses, with accompanying conditions, are intended to reflect the approach taken to such uses in the RGZ.
Council argued that that the changes are appropriate and the conditions are such that any of these uses in Precinct 6 could only be small scale and locate in areas where small-scale development is likely to complement future mixed use development. Council noted that an application for either a ‘shop’ or ‘office’ use would need to demonstrate how it is appropriate and will not be detrimental to adjoining land uses. Vicinity advised that its submission to the Amendment included a number of concerns, of which the ‘shop’ and ‘office’ uses was one, that had been subsequently resolved as a result of changes to the exhibited ACZ1.
Vicinity submitted that the only issue that remained outstanding related to that of acoustic protection provisions. 3.1.3 Discussion (i) Issue 1 - Higher density housing and reverse onus controls The Panel is of the view that the location of land designated for residential intensification adjacent to the western boundary of the Shopping Centre is appropriate and consistent with
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 12 of 25 relevant policy in relation to activity centres as well as Council’s adopted strategies. The Panel accepts that that new residential development would be the agent of change and should be subject to appropriate measures to manage potential amenity impacts as a result of the proximity any new multi storey residential development might have to the loading docks and service areas of the Shopping Centre. The Panel understands the concerns of Vicinity and believes that some additional wording is required in the ACZ1 to ensure that, in the residential intensification areas where such areas abut commercial and/or industrial land uses, the residential land uses take into account potential noise impacts from the established adjoining uses and seek to implement mitigation measures as appropriate.
Accordingly, the Panel supports the addition of a new objective in Precinct 6, in the Precinct Guidelines and Application requirements to address this issue. The Panel also supports similar changes to the Guidelines in Section 9.6 of the Structure Plan. In relation to what height building the revised Precinct Guideline should apply to, the Panel considers it should apply to development of two or more storeys, on the basis that the current acoustic fence only extends to a height of 3 metres and therefore it is likely that development extending beyond 3 metres in height, which would include a second storey, may be impacted if acoustic mitigation measures are not put in place.
In the Panel’s view, the requirement for an acoustic report, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority is appropriate. The Panel considers that it would be very difficult to ascertain whether proposed acoustic mitigation measures in a future residential development proposal will adequately address the requirements of SEPP N-1 and provide adequate acoustic protection from nearby industrial and commercial uses, without the benefit of an acoustic report. For this reason, the Panel accepts the inclusion of such a requirement is appropriate. (ii) Changes to the Use provisions The Panel is of the view that the approach taken by Council to the ‘shop’ and ‘office’ provisions for Precinct 6 in attempting to match the provisions of the RGZ is appropriate and will not result in inappropriately located commercial land uses.
In relation to this issue, the Panel notes that the provisions of Clause 7.0 ‘Notice and Review’ are such that for an application in Precinct 6 for a use or to construct or carry out works is not exempt from the notice and review requirements. Therefore, if there are any future concerns about inappropriately located land uses it is likely that any planning permit would be advertised, providing opportunity for further input to the planning process at that time. In relation to the wording of the conditions associated with ‘shop’ as a Section 1 use in Precinct 6, the Panel notes that in the exhibited ACZ1 and in the subsequent iterations provided to the Panel, there appears to be an error in the conditions.
The various versions of the Schedule include the following ‘shop’ condition: • The land must be located within 100 metres of land in an adjoining precinct of the Activity Centre Zone or have access to a road in a Road Zone. To reflect the requirements of the RGZ this first bullet point should read:
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 13 of 25 • The land must be located within 100 metres of land in an adjoining precinct of the Activity Centre Zone and must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone’. Notwithstanding the above, the Panel is aware of Amendment VC143, gazetted on 15 May 2018, which implemented a range of changes to various residential zones, including amending the RGZ to remove ‘food and drink premises’ and ‘shop’ from Section 1 and make them Section 2 uses, subject to conditions.
In the case of ‘shop’ the accompanying conditions are: • The land must be located within 100 metres of a commercial zone or Mixed Use Zone.
• The land must have the same street frontage as the land in the commercial zone or Mixed Use Zone. Nevertheless, the Panel finds that the proposed changes to the ACZ1, as exhibited, are appropriate. However, if Council’s intent is for the Precinct 6 controls in the ACZ1 for the Cranbourne Town Centre are to reflect the RGZ in relation to ‘food and drink premises’ and ‘shop’ uses, it may need to further consider the Schedule given the changes introduced by Amendment VC143.
3.1.4 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The location of a residential intensification area abutting the western boundary of Cranbourne Park Shopping Centre is appropriate, subject to management and mitigation measures being implemented by any future abutting residential development. • The ACZ1 should be amended to include additional ‘reverse onus’ acoustic requirements for such residential development. • The Structure Plan should be amended to include additional wording at Section 9.6 Precinct 6, under ‘Guidelines’ at the end of Guideline No. 7 so that it finishes ‘… so that emissions of noise from existing industrial and commercial uses complied with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise form Commerce, Industry and Trade) No.
N-1 (SEPP N-1)’.
• The approach taken to ‘office’ in Precinct 6, is appropriate. • Council should consider its position on the changes to the RGZ ‘shop’ and ‘food and drink premises’ in Precinct 6. 3.2 Precinct 9: Cranbourne Racecourse, Entertainment and Tourism 3.2.1 The issues The two key issues raised in relation to Precinct 9 in the ACZ1 that were addressed at the Hearing are: • Whether the ACZ1 should be further amended to restrict late-night entertainment venues in Precinct 9 (with particular concerns raised about a property at 130-136 Sladen Street) and, if the use provisions are not amended, whether the Schedule
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 14 of 25 should better address requirements to manage potential amenity impacts to nearby residential areas. • Whether the ACZ1 should be further amended to enable the use of land in Precinct 9 as a gymnasium. 3.2.2 Submissions (i) Issue 1 – Late night entertainment venues in Precinct 9 Council submitted that the main change proposed to the Precinct 9 provisions was to remove the sub-precincts. Council added that the changes that would affect future development and use in Precinct 9 were changes to the centre-wide land use and development.
Council advised the Panel that many of the concerns raised in relation to late night entertainment venues in Precinct 9 and specifically in relation to a potential future development at 130-136 Sladen Street, would be dealt with during the planning application process. Council submitted that further changes to the Table of Use provisions were not warranted. Mr Pellissier submitted that there should be a greater restriction and control over where late night entertainment venues, such as nightclubs or pubs, locate within the Activity Centre. He added there should be opportunities for other entertainment related land uses, such as an art gallery or theatre, to locate in Precinct 9, rather than late night venues.
Mr Pellissier expressed particular concern about the potential for a late night entertainment venue to locate on land at 130-136 Sladen Street as he felt that such a land use in that location would result in amenity impacts to surrounding residential properties from both noise and patron behaviour.
Council submitted that to address Mr Pellissier’s concerns an additional Decision Guideline could be added to Clause 8 under the heading ‘Use’. This guideline should state that ‘In Precinct 9, an application for a night club, hotel or tavern should ensure that there is no unreasonable amenity impact on the surrounding neighbourhood’. (ii) Issue 2 - Use of land as a gymnasium in Precinct 9 Multifield Constructions, the owners of the site at 130-136 Sladen Street, submitted that the use provisions of Clause 3 ‘Table of Uses’ of the ACZ1 should be amended so that a gymnasium is a permissible use.
Council submitted that a gymnasium falls within the definition of ‘restricted recreation facility’ at Clause 74 of the Planning Scheme, which is a Section 2 use in the ACZ1. It was Council’s position that no change is required to the Schedule as exhibited in relation to this issue. 3.2.3 Discussion (i) Issue 1 – Late night entertainment venues in Precinct 9 The Panel has some sympathy for Mr Pellissier’s concerns and understands the amenity impacts that late-night venues can have on neighbouring residential areas. Nonetheless, the Panel agrees with Council that it is not appropriate to change the Table of Uses at Clause 3 of the ACZ1 to address these concerns.
The Panel notes that hotel, nightclub
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 15 of 25 and tavern are all Section 2 uses at Clause 3 of the ACZ1 and this is consistent with other precincts as well and not limited to Precinct 9. The Panel agrees with Council that the majority of potential amenity impacts can and should be dealt with at the planning permit application stage of any proposal. The Panel also supports Council’s proposed inclusion of an additional requirement under the Decision Guidelines to require further consideration of amenity impacts. The Panel also considers that the requirement could potentially apply to all of the Precincts in the Activity Centre where such uses are permissible and not just Precinct 9.
In the Panel’s views there is the potential for such uses to also impact other parts of the Activity Centre, including the residential intensification areas in Precinct 6.
(ii) Issue 2 -Use of land as a gymnasium in Precinct 9 The Panel accepts the Council’s submission that the provisions of the ACZ1, as exhibited, include gymnasium as a permissible use in Precinct 9. Therefore, no change is required to the Schedule to address this issue. 3.2.4 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • There is the potential for late night entertainment venues in Precinct 9 of the Activity Centre to impact neighbouring residential land uses and so it is appropriate to include an additional Decision Guideline that addresses potential amenity impacts. • No change is required to ACZ1 to enable development and use of gymnasium in Precinct 9.
3.3 Bakewell Street 3.3.1 The issue The key issue raised in relation to Bakewell Street, in Precinct 5, was whether the proposed investigation of the closure of Bakewell Street to through traffic to High Street, which would in turn facilitate a public open space area at the intersection of Bakewell and High Street, is appropriate. 3.3.2 Submissions Council submitted that it is appropriate that the Structure Plan and ACZ1 both continue to identify the potential for the closure of Bakewell Street and the creation of a new open space area opposite Greg Clydesdale Square.
Council advised that: • The proposal to close Bakewell Street and have an open space area on the corner has been included in previous versions of the Structure Plan and associated Planning Scheme controls (prior to the ACZ applying to the Activity Centre the Structure Plan was applied via a Development Plan Overlay Schedule 1) since the Structure Plan was first adopted in 2006.
• At the time, the ‘Village Square’ was identified as one of six major transformation projects to be delivered through the 2006 plan. The project
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 16 of 25 was retained in the 2011 version of the Structure Plan and remains in the 2017 Structure Plan being considered by the Panel. • It may not be viable to close-off or modify Bakewell Street until there is reduced traffic along High Street however Council wishes to retain the project as an option acknowledging that it requires further investigation and would also require extensive consultation with affected landowners before any such road closure and open space development occurred. Ms Marson, on behalf of Aldi Stores Pty Ltd (Aldi), submitted that the proposed road closure would result in significant detrimental traffic and car parking impacts for Aldi.
Aldi was concerned that the closure may impact the viability of its retail offer and that of the broader Activity Centre. Consequently, Aldi opposed the establishment of an open space area. Aldi advised the Panel that it is a key retail attractor to the Activity Centre and noted the Policy support at a State and Local level to maintain a broad retail offering at the Activity Centre with convenient access and car parking.
Aldi highlighted the length of time that the corner has been designated for public open space and argued that there has been, and remains, a lack of urban design justification and rigour to the proposal. Accordingly, Aldi submitted that the ‘earmarking’ of the public open space should be removed from both Cranbourne Town Centre Framework Plan July 2017 and the ACZ1 and that the two precinct objectives at Clause 5.5-2 of the ACZ1 relating to the road closure and open space should be deleted.
3.3.3 Discussion The Panel acknowledges that the western end of Bakewell Street east of High Street has been designated as future open space in the Structure Plan for some time.
The Panel accepts the Council’s explanation that the delay in realising this outcome is the impact that the continued high speed, high traffic volume environment of High Street would have on this open space. The Panel acknowledges that, at present, there may not seem to be significant merit in providing an open space area in Bakewell Street, opposite Greg Clydesdale Square. However, if High Street becomes a lower speed and less trafficked environment, as a result of the Cranbourne by-pass, the amenity and accessibility offered by an open space area on the east side of High Street will become more apparent.
As a consequence, the Panel does not support the deletion of the reference to the road closure and the open space from the ACZ1 or the Structure Plan. However, the Panel notes the redevelopment of part of Bakewell Street for open space would require the closure of the road. As identified in the Precinct Objectives for Precinct 5, any closure of Bakewell Street will require further traffic and parking analysis, as well as consultation with key stakeholders, land owners and Government agencies such as VicRoads. This process would also consider traffic management, car parking, pedestrian accessibility and urban design outcomes.
For this reason, the Panel does not support the removal of the open space designation from the corner of Bakewell and High Street. However, the Panel considers that a rewording of the relevant Precinct 5 Objectives (in both the ACZ1 and the Structure Plan) is appropriate so that it is clear that the creation of a new open space area as contemplated can only occur if the
Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C204 Panel Report 6 June 2018 Page 17 of 25 investigation of the closure of Bakewell Street demonstrates that it represents a nett community benefit for the Activity Centre.
3.3.4 Conclusions The Panel concludes: • The investigation of the closure of Bakewell Street and the location of public open space on the corner of Bakewell and High streets should continue to be shown in the Precinct 5 mapping in both the ACZ1 and the Structure Plan. • The Precinct Objectives for Precinct 5 at Clause 5.5-2 of the ACZ1 and in Section 9.5 of the 2017 Structure Plan should be amended to reflect the fact that the provision of the public open space area is reliant upon the further investigation of the closure of Bakewell Street demonstrating a net community benefit for the Activity Centre.
3.4 Transport for Victoria issues 3.4.1 The issue There were four issues raised by Transport for Victoria (TfV) in relation to the proposed Amendment. These issues can be summarised as: • The Precinct 2 guidelines relating to built form and development should have better regard to the interface with Cranbourne Station.
• For both Precincts 2 and 6 (where it abuts the station) pedestrian links and way finding to the station should be provided and that this should be addressed in the ACZ1. • The ACZ1 should include guidelines or objectives that address the need for cycling links. • Visual links and pedestrian connections from Lyall Street across High Street should be addressed. 3.4.2 Submissions The issues raised by TfV were outlined in their written submission to the exhibited amendment. Following receipt of their submission, Council undertook further consultation with TfV to try and resolve some of the issues and TfV elected not to make a submission at the Panel Hearing.
In response to the TfV issues raised in relation to the guidelines for built form, Council proposed to reinstate and reword one of the Precinct Objectives at Precinct 2: Cranbourne Railway Station Environs (Clause 5.2-2) of the ACZ1 so that the third dot point states: To encourage multi-level development that optimises the use of the Cranbourne Railway Station and public transport facilities. In relation to the pedestrian and wayfinding issues, Council submitted that these are not issues that can be dealt with by the Amendment but that such issues are addressed through the Cranbourne Town Centre Signage and Branding Strategy, with future improvements to be made via Council’s Capital Works program, and which is also likely to be addressed as part of the redevelopment of large sites in proximity to the station (such as those north of Cranbourne Railway Station).