Minutes of Council Meeting - Monday, 10 July 2023

Council Minutes 10 July 2023

10.1 Amendment C230whse - 490-500 Burwood Highway, Vermont South, Former ARRB site - Consideration of Amendment and Panel Report

City Planning and Development
City Development
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

Amendment C230 proposes to rezone the former ARRB site from Transport Zone 4 to Residential Growth Zone (RGZ3) and apply a site specific Design and Development Overlay (DDO6), the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO10), the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) and the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO). The site has an existing Heritage Overlay (HO23) recognising the former ARRB building and its surrounds.

The Amendment has been exhibited in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) and Council considered the 41 submissions received at its meeting on 26 September 2022. The independent Panel appointed to hear submissions and consider the amendment has provided its report in Attachment 1 which Council must now consider.

The Panel focussed on two main areas of concern:

· The impacts of the amendment on the adjoining Victoria Grange Retirement Village (Victoria Grange) in terms of the visual impact of future development and treatment of the site interfaces. The Panel considered that the heights and setbacks proposed in the amendment were reasonable but that care needs to be taken in the design and articulation of the south and east facing buildings to minimise impacts. It recognised the importance of the vegetation on the site and along the interfaces to achieving good development outcomes.

· The traffic and safety impact of vehicles entering and egressing the site to Burwood Highway. The Panel recognised that Burwood Highway was edging toward practical capacity during peak hours and identified safe access to Burwood Highway as a threshold issue for this site.

· It examined access arrangements to Moondani Drive, part of which operates as a service road to Victoria Grange and the amendment land. The Panel explored the manoeuvres that vehicles exiting the site to Burwood Highway would make, wherein the Panel expressed concern about safe egress and looked at options to manage this access. The Panel accepted that there would be subsequent steps in the planning process where detailed traffic designs will be required to be approved by Council and by the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) as the road manager for Burwood Highway. It recommended that the DDO6 include additional wording to address these matters and that Council work cooperatively with DTP to identify strategic solutions for this part of the network.

Other areas of discussion in the Panel report related to:

· Heritage - particularly the significance of the courtyards associated with the buildings and clarifying elements of primary and secondary significance.

· Landscaping – support for the SLO10 being applied but only one of the proposed three trees were recommended for protection by the VPO5.

· Stormwater infrastructure – the need to indicate the stormwater detention basin on the Concept Plan in DDO6.

Overall, the Panel considers that the amendment has strong strategic justification and should proceed subject to changes, primarily relating to the DDO6 and the Concept Plan forming part of the overlay. The changes recommended by the Panel essentially refine and give greater clarity to the proposed controls and do not change the overall intent or built form parameters of the amendment being considered.

The majority of the Panel’s recommended changes to Amendment C230 can be supported by officers, except for:

· An upper limit of 290 dwellings on the site. A dwelling limit is at odds with State policy to increase densities in locations close to retail, services, community infrastructure, transport and employment. It would be unusual to include a dwelling limit unless it were due to traffic concerns. If it is to control overall outcomes for the site this should be achieved through mandatory design controls. While the Panel dedicated considerable explanation to traffic and safety issues, the dwelling limit was not proposed in this context in the panel report.

· The complete exclusion of vehicle access within the mandatory boundary setbacks. Potential access via the existing eastern entry/exit will be problematic if a mandatory boundary setback is applied in this location. Instead, officers propose a preferred building setback at the north-east end of the site to address this issue.

· The exemptions recommended in relation to building height to allow certain building elements to exceed the building height, which based on definitions and case law, are not needed.

· Articulation of the apartment forms to prevent “long, blank walls” as a note in the legend of the Concept Plan. This matter is more appropriately included in the body of the DDO6.

Changes to the amendment were put forward at two key stages in the amendment process: during the Panel hearing (which the Panel has largely accepted) and subsequently in the Panel report. Attachment 2 sets out all of the proposed changes to the amendment (tracked and annotated) that are recommended by officers since exhibition. Attachment 3 is a clean version of the amendment document for adoption and includes the changes shown in Attachment 2.

It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment at Attachment 3 and submit it to the Minister for Planning for approval.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved by Cr Carr, Seconded by Cr Massoud

That Council:

1. Being the Planning Authority, and having considered the Panel Report at Attachment 1 for Amendment C230whse under Section 27 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:

a) Adopts Amendment C230whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Act with changes at Attachment 3, as per the Panel recommendations, plus minor additional changes, except for:

i) An upper limit of 290 dwellings on the site

ii) The complete exclusion of vehicle access within the boundary setback at the north-east part of the site relating to the existing eastern access point.

iii) The exemptions recommended in relation to allowable elements above building height

iv) Reference to articulation of apartment forms in the Concept Plan legend.

b) Submits the adopted Amendment C230whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31 of the Act with the appropriate fee.

2. Authorises the Director City Development to undertake minor administrative changes to the amendment that do not change the intent of the amendment.

3. Advises all submitters to Amendment C230whse of this decision.

CARRIED

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Barker

Cr Carr

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr Munroe

Cr Skilbeck

Against

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr McNeill

On the results of the Division the motion was declared carried

Key Matters

· The Planning Panel supports the amendment to rezone the land to RGZ3 and the suite of overlays being applied. While the Panel has recommended changes, it considers that the amendment has significant strategic merit and should be approved.

· This report proposes that most but not all of the Panel recommendations be adopted and that additional minor modifications be made specifically in relation to DDO6. This requires clear planning justification which is discussed in this report.

· Changes to the amendment relate primarily to refinement and clarity of the DDO6 with only minor changes to other parts of the amendment.

· In the VPO5, the Panel recommends that only 1 of the 3 trees be included in the overlay.

· A key matter of concern to the Panel having heard from Victoria Grange residents and owners of the Retirement Village, Australian Unity, related to the future traffic impacts of the development on Burwood Highway and traffic management solutions to enable safe access to and egress from the site. While DTP has jurisdiction over Burwood Highway, the Panel recommended Council and the proponent work with DTP to find a solution to the traffic concerns. Full assessment of the traffic impacts will occur at the planning permit application stage. A Traffic Engineering Report is required as part of future applications under DDO6 to address these matters.

· Moondani Drive presents as a relatively complex access arrangement which will need to be addressed at the planning permit application stage.

· Other concerns from residents of the Victoria Grange and Australian Unity related to visual impact of future development and treatment of the development interfaces. The Panel considered that these concerns would be appropriately managed through the proposed suite of planning controls, subject to various improvements to the DDO6 and the Concept Plan contained in the overlay.

· The former ARRB administrative building was damaged by fire in late March 2021. It is noted that action and matters in relation to the fire incident are separate to this amendment process.

Strategic Alignment

As reported to the 26 September 2022 meeting, the Amendment supports Strategic Direction 4: Our Built Environment, Movement and Public Places of the Council Plan 2021-2025, and Strategic Direction 5: Sustainable Climate and Environmental Care. That report identified how the amendment responded to the relevant objectives 4.1, 4.2 and 5.2 in the Council Plan. In summary, the amendment:

· Facilitates the retention of a valued heritage building while enabling redevelopment and use of a vacant site

· Supports and promotes greater housing diversity and housing stock in an established urban area, that is close to an activity centre, public transport, schools, public open space, and the business park at Tally Ho

· Ensures an appropriate response to heritage, environmental and neighbourhood character values

· Seeks to retain tree canopy and recognises the environmental and landscape features of the site, including the Beryl Mann landscape design.

Policy

The report to Council on 26 September 2022 set out State and local policies and their relevance to the amendment. In summary:

· Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 (the metropolitan planning strategy) - Direction 2.1 (Manage the supply of housing in the right locations to meet population growth and create a sustainable city), by aligning the zone and overlay controls with the preferred housing outcome and the scale of development for the site.

· Whitehorse Housing Strategy, 2014 - The amendment land is considered to meet the criteria for inclusion in a substantial change area.

· Neighbourhood Character Study, 2014 – As all the residential land surrounding the site is identified as being in a Garden Suburban 7 Neighbourhood Character Precinct, the amendment proposes to include the site in the same Precinct.

· Neighbourhood Activity Centre Urban Design Guidelines, 2014 - The built form parameters in the Guidelines include a maximum building height of 21.5 metres / 6 storeys for the nearby Vermont South Shopping Centre which is relevant to the amendment site.

· Residential Corridors Built Form Study, 2019 - The Amendment site adjoins land along Burwood Highway that is included in the adopted Study. The Study is being implemented via a separate amendment (C220whse) and establishes built form controls to better guide development outcomes along these corridors. The Study proposes a mandatory 6 storey building height and mandatory front building setback which is directly relevant to the Amendment C230.

background

The Amendment was exhibited from 2 June to 5 July 2022. The 41 submissions received were considered by Council at its meeting on 26 September 2022 and referred to an independent Planning Panel.

The Panel held a Directions Hearing on 28 October 2022. The main Panel Hearing was held from 7 – 10 February 2023. Council was represented by a planning consultant and Council’s strategic planning coordinator. The Panel undertook several site inspections, some accompanied and some unaccompanied.

The Panel heard from four parties, including Council as the planning authority, the proponent (Dandenong Views Pty Ltd) and two submitters, being Australian Unity (owners of Victoria Grange Retirement Village) and a resident representative from Victoria Grange. The proponent presented nine expert evidence statements in Planning, Urban Design, Heritage, Landscape, Traffic, Arboriculture, Air Emissions, Noise and Contamination, plus a consultant report on Infrastructure Servicing. Six of the experts were called to give evidence during the hearing.

The Panel report in Attachment 1 was received by Council on 16 March 2023 and was released to the public on 24 March 2023, in accordance with Council’s policy of releasing Panel reports after 7 days of it being received. All submitters were advised that the Panel report was received and available to view in person or on Council’s website.

Discussion and Options

Overview of recommendations

After the considering the Amendment and submissions, the Panel recommended to:

1. Adopt Amendment C230whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, subject to updating Schedule 6 to Design and Development Overlay in Appendix D.

2. Include the Concept Plan provided in Schedule 6 to Design and Development Overlay in Document 78, subject to:

a) Redraw it to an appropriate scale to ensure clarity on key areas within the site, including access roads, building envelopes, the proposed 5 and 12 metre setback areas, the courtyard, the front landscape area.

b) Retain the courtyard south of the Administration Building.

c) Reinstate the pedestrian link locations that were provided on the exhibited Concept Plan.

d) Stipulate and show in metres, the mandatory setbacks from the western, southern and eastern site boundaries.

e) Include the location of a stormwater detention basin in the south west corner of the site, as referenced in Figure 13 of this report, with a notation that this location is indicative only.

f) Delete the word ‘vehicular’ from the Legend so that it reads: “** Mandatory setbacks exclude landscaping, fences, services, drainage infrastructure and cycling access”

g) Delete the words "except for plant, services and lift overruns" and replace with "except for architectural features".

3. Provide the following additional notes in the legend to the Concept Plan provided in Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay in Document 78, subject to:

a) The opportunity for ‘preferred apartment built form’ is not to be read as a building envelope, rather it indicates the general location for the built form elements.

b) The upper limit of total dwellings is 290.

c) Vehicular access roads are be located a minimum of five metres from the western, and southern boundaries and 12 metres from the eastern site boundaries in accordance with the designated 12 metre setback area.

d) The southern and eastern facing aspects of the proposed residential apartments are to be articulated (both in style and through urban design features) so as to not form long, blank walls.

4. Include Heritage Overlay 23 in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme as exhibited, subject to the following:

a) Include additional notations to the plan that shows ‘Location of contributory elements’

· Note the plan is not to scale

· List each of the primary and secondary significance items.

· Shade the landscape areas to highlight its status as an element of primary significance in accordance with the revised dot point under ‘Elements of Primary Significance’.

b) Amend the second dot point under ‘Elements of Primary Significance’ to read:

· The landscape setting around the Administration Building including the open space to the north in the front setback, to the west and to the south, including the courtyard configuration.

5. Include Significant Landscape Overlay 10 in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme as provided in Document 79, subject to:

a) Amend the first two dot points of Clause 2.0 ‘Landscape character objectives to be achieved’ to read:

· To retain medium and high-value established native trees.

· To ensure development responds to the landscape integrity of the original Beryl Mann landscape design.

· Include Tree 135 only in the exhibited Vegetation Protection Overlay 5.

6. Include Tree 135 only in the exhibited Vegetation Protection Overlay 5.

Structure of the Panel’s report

The Panel presented its findings under four key headings, each of these are discussed below:

1. Planning context

2. Planning, heritage and landscape

3. Traffic and access

4. Other impacts - Noise, air emissions, contamination, stormwater management and civil services

1. Planning context

The Panel outlined the relevant planning policy framework, controls, Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes in the Planning Scheme. The Panel concluded that the Amendment is strategically justified.

In the executive summary of its report, the Panel states that the Amendment had “significant strategic merit and should be approved. It will result in a new use for a vacant and desolate site that will positively contribute to delivering important housing and policy outcomes.” (Panel Report, page 7)

The Panel listed the attributes of the site, including its excellent location, access to public and private transport networks, range of community facilities and employment locations.

Officer comments

Council officers note the Panel’s conclusion that the Amendment is strategically justified. Of particular note are the Panel’s comments regarding the opportunity to deliver important housing close to transport, shops, employment opportunities and services.

Officer conclusion

No change to the Amendment is required.

2. Planning, heritage and landscape

a) Planning

The Panel noted the site is proposed for higher built form in an area designated for substantial change. The Panel commented that the site was on a major arterial road with excellent proximity to public transport, retail, community, open spaces, and employment opportunities is consistent with State and local planning policy, including Plan Melbourne.

The Panel supported the rezoning of the land to RGZ3, however it had some reservations about the use of the DDO6 to guide future forms of development at the site.

The Panel supported future buildings ranging between three and six storeys in the locations proposed on the DDO6 Concept Plan (Concept Plan). However, it noted the potential impacts on Victoria Grange. The Panel accepted there would be some visual impact and change in outlook for the residents in Victoria Grange. “However, the Panel considers the heights and setbacks proposed are reasonable for the site. The vegetation is a feature of the subject land and that, coupled with the setbacks and heights proposed, should ensure there will be the opportunity to provide for an acceptable outcome in terms of the built form.

Notwithstanding, the Panel accepts built form at the east and the south of the subject land should be designed to ensure there is care taken to minimise impacts.” (Panel Report, page 26)

Accordingly, the Panel discusses (at page 26) some additional changes to the Concept Plan to ensure there is stepping back and articulation from the eastern and southern facing building. Recommendation 3(d) from the Panel relates to this matter but it is specific to articulation of the apartment buildings (presumably those in the centre of the site) to ensure the southern and eastern elevations do not form long, blank walls. It is noted that the Panel recommends retaining the pedestrian links shown on the exhibited Concept Plan [recommendation 2(c)] which will also assist in breaking up the town house built forms along the southern interface to Victoria Grange as well as the western interface.

The Panel recommended a prohibition on vehicle access within the proposed 5 metre and 12 metre boundary setbacks shown on the Concept Plan. The Panel’s intent being that these setbacks should be primarily for landscaping and “not become defacto roads.” (Panel Report, page 26)

The Panel supported the mix of mandatory and discretionary heights as exhibited, except it noted that there should be no structure above the finished roof line, except for architectural features.

During the panel process, the proponent’s experts suggested increasing the heights from 19 to 20 metres (for 6 storey) and 13 to 13.5 metres (for 4 storey) to allow for slightly higher floor to ceiling heights and greater design flexibility. These changes were not supported by Council officers or the other parties and ultimately not supported by the Panel either.

The Panel also supported specification of the number of stories as well as building height in metres, as exhibited. It also supported the location for the various building heights across the site.

The Panel had several concerns with the Concept Plan, the accompanying legend and the level of resolution, with the potential to create uncertainty at a future planning permit stage (including at VCAT). In addition to those matters already discussed, the Panel also noted the following matters that needed to be addressed in the Concept Plan:

· The scale of the plan needs to be revised so that the size of the site, and the opportunities and constraints can be understood.

· The level of detail needs to be resolved, showing setbacks and other indicators such as where roads and paths could go.

· The actual number of dwellings. The Panel raised this during the hearing and in its report stated that “given the proponent advised 290 dwellings would be the upper limit, the Panel considers that number should be included in the legend to the Concept Plan to ensure it is accountable to that number”.

Overall, the Panel recommended that the Concept Plan needs to be redrawn to a reasonable scale so that different indicators can be properly shown.

Officer comments

The Panel’s support for the rezoning of the land to RGZ3 is noted.

In response to the Panel’s concerns about the use of a DD06 compared with a Development Plan Overlay (DPO), officers note the controls were discussed at length with the former Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (formally DELWP now DTP). Officers consider the DDO6 is the most appropriate tool for this particular site as it provides guidance but can retain the usual third party notice and review rights. The DDO6 version recommended in this report will ensure that surrounding residents would be given notice of future planning permit applications at the site.

The Panel recommended several changes to the Concept Plan in the DDO6, ultimately with a view to ensuring that the control can easily be understood, protect the future amenity and outlook from Victoria Grange to the extent practicable, and ensure all indicators would be clear to future permit applicants and decision makers. Importantly, there will be a future planning permit process which will resolve the next level of detail.

While not covered in detail in the Panel report, the representation of the built form in the central part of the site on the Concept Plan was discussed by parties at the hearing. The depiction of the central area, as exhibited (refer Figure 1), shows specific ‘building footprint’ forms and ‘white spaces’ that are ambiguous. The Panel preferred the broader representation of the central area intended for apartment forms (and used the Concept Plan put forward by the proponent) to indicate “the general location for the built form elements” (recommendation 3a) rather than specific building envelopes on the Concept Plan (refer Figure 2). The Panel then recommended additional wording in the DDO6 intended to separate buildings to achieve these outcomes. Officers support this approach.

Figure 1 – Concept Plan – DDO6 as exhibited

Figure 2 – Concept Plan – Extract from Panel preferred DDO6 (Panel report, Appendix D, p 67). Note: This does not including the Panel’s recommended changes

Council officers agree that it is critical that the DDO6 control is clear in its intentions and that the Concept Plan is a key guiding aspect of the control. Officers agree that the scale of the Concept Plan and level of detail needs to be resolved. However, officers do not agree with all changes recommended by the Panel, specifically:

· Council officers are concerned about including an upper limit on the number of dwellings in the DDO6. The DDO is a design and built form control, not a density control. Council did not intend to include any density controls at the site, particularly given the excellent location and attributes of the site. Imposing an upper dwelling limit would, in Council officer’s view be contrary to State and local policy which encourages dwelling diversity and affordability in well serviced locations. The Panel has not referenced the restriction in relation to traffic concerns, rather as being an ‘accountable number’. As the built form parameters and other controls in the DDO6 will limit off-site impacts, it is not considered that a density limit is warranted. An option available to the Panel instead of a dwelling limit would be to recommend that the discretionary 19m / 6 storey height limit in the central part of the site, be mandatory.

· Council officers generally support the proposal to exclude vehicle access within the 5m and 12m boundary landscape setback. This is a very clear recommendation of the Panel. However, it is noted that a complete prohibition on vehicle access at the north-eastern boundary of the site could inadvertently prevent vehicle access to Moondani Drive and Burwood Highway. This was not the intent of the Panel, which very clearly left the option open for the eastern access as a potential access point to the site subject to a future planning permit application and full traffic assessment. For clarity, Council officers therefore suggest a slightly modified version of the Concept Plan to implement the intent of the Panel’s recommendation by including a preferred 5m building setback in the above location.

A correction is also needed to the mandatory setback shown between the courtyard and the east boundary which should be 5m not 12m.

· Council officers do not support the Panel’s recommended change to exempt ‘architectural features’ from the building height. It is potentially vague and may lead to interpretation difficulties at the planning permit stage and unintended consequences. The definition of ‘building height’ in the Planning Scheme already allows for services and features, which do not form part of the roof to exceed the maximum building height. The Tribunal has considered the scope of these exclusions on many occasions^{^[1]} and vague wording could create confusion at the planning permit stage.

· Inclusion of the note in the legend of the Concept Plan relating to articulation of the apartment forms [Panel recommendation 3(d)]. This provision is best included in the body of the DDO6 and is adequately covered by existing and slightly modified wording.

Officer conclusion – The Panel’s recommendations are supported except for the four items discussed above in relation to:

· A dwelling limit for the site

· Prohibition on vehicle access within the east boundary setback at the north-east corner of the site. Instead, a preferred 5m building setback in the above location is suggested.

· Elements that may be exempt from the building height.

· Reference to articulation of the apartment forms to prevent “long, blank walls” as a note in the legend of the Concept Plan as this matter is more appropriately included in the body of the DDO6 but with modifications to simplify, avoid duplication in the DDO6 and remove unnecessary detail.

Council should therefore adopt most of the Panel’s recommendations in relation to the Concept Plan and DDO6, including:

· An updated version of the Concept Plan to make the plan easier to read, ensure it can be practically implemented and clarify the key as shown in Attachment 2. This responds to the Panel’s recommendations 2 and 3.

· An updated version of the DDO6 to ensure it is consistent with the updates to the Concept Plan and incorporates sufficient information to guide good built form outcomes, especially where there is a sensitive interface with existing residential buildings as shown in Attachment 2. This responds to the Panel’s recommendation 1.

b) Heritage

The Panel noted that there was no dispute in relation to the inclusion^{^[2]} of the site within the HO23.

The Panel did not support the position of the proponent and its witnesses that courtyard adjoining the rear of the Administration building was of lesser heritage significance. On the contrary, the Panel considered that the courtyard was strongly associated with the Administrative building and that relationship should continue in the site’s redevelopment.

The Panel recommended that the elements of primary and secondary heritage significance be more clearly defined and illustrated in the Heritage Statement of Significance and that the landscape setting around the Administration building be more accurately described. During the hearing, Council also presented some minor edits to the Heritage Statement of Significance (Attachment 2). The Panel did not oppose these refinements.

Officer comments

Council officers note the Panel’s comments in relation to the heritage significance of the courtyard and its relationship to the Administrative building and accept the clarifications to the Heritage Statement of Significance.

Officer conclusion – That Council:

· Adopts the Statement of Heritage significance as exhibited, subject to revisions as shown in Attachment 2. This responds to the Panel’s recommendation 4.

· Adopts an amended version of the Concept Plan to DDO6 as shown in Attachment 2, that more clearly delineates the extent of the courtyard to the south of the Administrative building and responds to the Panel’s recommendation 2(b).

c) Landscape and vegetation

The Panel supported the application of SLO10 across the site to protect the many trees, including important stands of trees. It recommended minor changes to the landscape character objectives in SLO10, which are in addition to edits put forward by parties during the hearing.

The exhibited Amendment also proposed to apply the VPO5 to protect three outstanding trees:

· Tree 111 – Brittle Gum (next to Research Wing 3 in the south western part of the site)

· Tree 135 – Yellow Box (along the southern boundary next to Research Wing 2)

· Tree 183 – Sydney Blue Gum (in the frontage adjacent to Burwood Highway).

At page 30, the Panel commented:

“While the Panel raised the issue of doubling up on tree control, it agrees SLO10 is necessary and given VPO5 already exists, it accepts Council’s position in this regard.” (Panel Report, page 30).

However, the Panel was not persuaded that Trees 111 and 183 should be included in the VPO5. The Panel agreed with the expert evidence of Mr Galbraith (called by the proponent) that only tree 135 was worthy of inclusion in the VPO5.

The Panel commented that it was not presented with an alternative view on the value of trees by Council’s arborist. Hence, it relied on the evidence presented by Mr Galbraith in relation to the value of the trees.

Officer comments

Council officers acknowledge the Panel’s comments in relation to the more limited use of the VPO5. However, it is noted that Trees 111 and 183 will still be protected via the SLO10 which will apply across the site and (where applicable) native vegetation provisions at Clause 52.17. Review of Trees 111 and 183 will therefore also occur through the future planning permit application.

Council officers did not present Council’s arborist as a witness at the Panel because the proponent indicated that the tree controls were not in dispute.

Officer conclusion – That Council accepts the Panel’s recommendations 5 and 6 with respect to landscaping and vegetation as shown in Attachment 2 plus other minor revisions raised during the hearing and accepted by the Panel.

3. Traffic and access

a) General

Traffic was a particular area of interest to the Panel during the hearing, as this was one of the key concerns raised by the submitters from Victoria Grange. Key issues considered by the Panel were:

· Traffic impacts

· Proposed traffic management works

· Access and egress to Burwood Highway, in particular, safety aspects

· Car parking allowance

· Pedestrians and cyclists.

The Panel was interested in who was responsible for the relevant roads during the hearing. Burwood Highway is controlled by DTP and as such, Council relied on its advice in relation to the suitability of access onto the highway.

The Panel queried the legal rights of access over Moondani Drive during the hearing, to understand who controlled the access. The Panel commented:

“Council advised in response to the Panel’s questions that the Moondani Drive section situated within the Burwood Highway Road Reserve is a private road with right of way. The section of Moondani Drive, accessed from the service road servicing the VGRV, is a private road.” (Panel Report, page 32)

There was discussion during the hearing about these arrangements and the proponent indicated that perhaps Council could declare Moondani Drive a road. While not directly relevant to the Amendment, this matter is discussed below and may need to be addressed at a later stage such as when there is further detail as part of a future planning permit application.

The Panel acknowledged that the Amendment was consistent with Council’s aspirations to increase residential densities along Burwood Highway, however it noted that Burwood Highway was edging closer to practical capacity.

The Panel commented that safe access from the site to Burwood Highway must be the priority and Burwood Highway’s performance must be considered in this context. The Panel noted that some of Council’s more general comments about access onto Burwood Highway (comparing the site as having similar access arrangements to existing nearby service roads) was unhelpful. It was evident that the Panel viewed the access arrangements at the site as uncommon and was looking for more specific direction from Council, including Council and the proponent work with DTP to find a solution to mitigate potential traffic impacts on Burwood Highway.

The Panel identified several options, including reducing the speed limit to 60 kilometres per hour, at least in the morning peak hour and ways to more safely manoeuvre onto Burwood HighwayRunningRRunning@jaime. The Panel noted this would require approval from DTP.

The Panel ultimately recommended that more specific wording be included in DDO6 to address these traffic concerns in the Traffic Engineering Report that will need to accompany future planning permit applications.

Officer comments

In his evidence, Mr Kiriakidis presented an overview of the existing access arrangements (and easements) to the site, including Moondani Drive.

Figure 3 – Plan of subdivision PS433751M (extract)

To summarise Figure 3:

· The site^{^[3]} represents Lot 1 on PS433751M (dated 10 June 2009) (Plan of Subdivision).

· That Plan of Subdivision shows a right of way easement (E-2, circled) in favour of the Amendment land, over Lot B (i.e. the Victoria Grange site).

· E-2 forms part of what is now commonly known as ‘Moondani Drive’.

· The other part of ‘Moondani Drive’ is identified as E-4 on the Plan of Subdivision. The Plan of Subdivision does not show that the Amendment land has right of way over E4.

· According to the Plan of Subdivision, the occupants of the Amendment land only have a right of way over the western part of Moondani Drive (i.e. E-2), essentially facilitating a left out, but not a left in movement.

· This may create legal impediments to providing any entry at the north eastern corner of the site via Moondani Drive.

Further advice should be sought in relation to the Moondani Drive access arrangement and this is something that officers expect to be resolved as part of a future planning permit application.

Council officers note the Panel’s comments in relation to Burwood Highway and the need for a more coordinated approach to managing access to the arterial road. Many of the options canvassed at the hearing and identified by the Panel would require the approval of DTP, however they would also have broader reaching implications on the road network. DTP did not participate in the Panel hearing, but was alerted to the Panel report findings and has since provided a response which defers consideration of traffic mitigation measures to the planning permit application stage. DTP did not comment on the Panel’s suggestion that the Burwood Highway/Hanover Road/Hartland Road intersection be reviewed.

Officer conclusion – That Council:

· Adopts the amended version of the DDO6 that identifies specific matters to be included in the Traffic Engineering Report to be submitted with any future planning permit application and includes a requirement to “provide safe and appropriate access to Burwood Highway” (Attachment 2).

· Considers legal access arrangements to the site at the time a planning permit application is lodged.

b) Car parking and road width

The Panel was satisfied with the expert evidence of Mr Kiriakidis on both car parking and road width. The Panel accepts this site does require a level of visitor parking at a rate of between 0.1 and 0.2 car spaces per dwelling.

The suggested ‘access place’ road typology (as defined in Rescode), which includes a pavement width of 5.5 metres, is acceptable if used in conjunction with mountable kerbs to allow off road parking.

The Panel concluded that these requirements were sufficiently covered in its version of the amended DDO6.

Officer comments

Council officers agree with the Panel’s position with respect to visitor parking. However, Council would need to consider appropriateness of mountable / roll over kerbs in the context of a development proposal. Either way, this requirement does not need to be specified in the DDO6 as it is already addressed as part of Clause 56 that will need to be dealt with at the planning permit stage.

Officer conclusion – That Council adopt the amended version of the DDO6 (refer to Attachment 2) that identifies specific matters to be included in the Traffic Engineering Report to be submitted with any future planning permit application.

c) Access to Burwood Highway

The Panel identified access to Burwood Highway as a threshold issue, having been raised in most submissions, primarily from Victoria Grange.

The Panel accepted that there would be subsequent steps in the planning process where detailed traffic designs will be required to be approved by Council and DTP.

The Panel accepted the concerns from submitters in Victoria Grange regarding existing and future access arrangements, particularly during the morning peak. The Panel was critical of Council in its attention to these concerns:

Given the near practical capacity of Burwood Highway at the subject land, and its potentially adverse impacts on current and proposed access, the Panel was surprised Council did not investigate the concerns of residents. (Panel Report, page 34)

The Panel canvassed a number of design solutions (which would need to be considered at the planning permit stage). The Panel suggested that consideration be given the following solutions:

· Introduction of ‘keep clear’ road marking on Burwood Highway to encourage courtesy gaps

· A ‘stop here on red signal’ light to allow safe exit from Moondani Drive

· More detailed consideration and clarification of the joint access arrangements to Moondani Drive and how this would operate.

· Further consideration of limiting access, so that the eastern access was limited to entry only. However the Panel also noted the safety concerns with vehicles exiting from the western access onto Burwood Highway across the left turn lane to Hanover Road and across multiple through lanes so close to the intersection. The Panel recognised that both access points have issues.

· Fine tuning of the Burwood Highway/Hanover Road/Hartland Road signalised intersection.

The Panel also stated:

“As raised at the Hearing, the Panel believes there is an opportunity for Council to contribute to a solution by considering the installation of a roundabout in Hartland Road at its intersection with Citrus Street. Mr McJannet advised this would have the benefit of all future exiting vehicles having an easier, safer option to turn left into Hartland Road, undertake a U-turn around the roundabout, to access Hanover Road or travel to the east.” (Panel Report, page 42)

Given the additional level of detail needed at the planning application stage to satisfy these vehicle access concerns, the Panel accepted submissions that access routes and directions shown on the DDO6 Concept Plan should be indicative.

Officer comments

Council officers note the concerns in relation to the function of Burwood Highway and the surrounding road network. While this is ultimately a matter for DTP to review, it would be prudent for Council and DTP to liaise on any solutions.

The criticism in how Council has handled access onto Burwood Highway is noted. Interestingly, the Panel did not comment on the limited feedback from DTP received during the process, especially when DTP is the road manager.

The Panel suggested that Council consider installing a roundabout in Hartland Road at Citrus Street to assist with traffic wanting to travel east on Burwood Highway. Council’s Transport Team is not supportive of this idea which simply points to a design issue with the development. Further, there are physical limitations to installing a roundabout at this location such as the narrow road width, the grade of the road, the potential for rear end accidents and the impact on queuing of north bound traffic.

The exact details of what traffic engineering solutions should be implemented are a matter of detail which should be considered at the planning permit stage.

Officer conclusion – That Council:

· Works cooperatively with DTP to identify any strategic solutions for this part of the network, noting that this should occur at the planning permit stage.

· Adopts the amended version of the DDO6 that identifies specific matters to be included in the Traffic Engineering Report to be submitted with any future planning permit application (Attachment 2).

d) Pedestrian and bicycle network

The Panel considered that the Concept Plan was vague in relation to pedestrian and cycling access and movements through the site. The Panel referenced the original circulation plan prepared by Tract as part of the planning scheme amendment process.

Figure 4 – Extract from the Planning Scheme Amendment Report, Tract, April 2022 showing proposed pedestrian movement and circulation plan

The Panel did not support the proponent’s inference that vehicular access could be included within the 5 and 12 metre setbacks proposed along the eastern interface area, and it has recommended this be excluded from the intended landscaped boundary in DDO6 (as discussed above).

The Panel considered that the proponent’s final version of DDO6 provides an adequate pathway to achieve a good quality outcome for pedestrians and cyclists within the proposed development. It also recommended that the pedestrian links shown in the exhibited version of the DDO6 be reinstated on the Concept Plan.

Officer comments

Council officers partly agree with the Panel’s recommendations. Officers agree that, as a matter of principle, vehicle access should not be allowed within the setbacks to sensitive land uses (along the eastern and southern boundary) which are intended for landscaping.

However, as noted earlier, the Panel’s recommendation of not allowing vehicle access within the mandatory 5m setback may be impractical at the north eastern corner of the site where this would likely prevent legal access via the existing eastern entry from Moondani Drive/Burwood Highway.

Officers agree that circulation pedestrian and bicycle routes through the site could be clearer on the Concept Plan.

Officer conclusion – That Council adopt an updated version of the Concept Plan to make pedestrian and bicycle routes through the site clearer, ensure that vehicle access can be practically implemented and clarify the legend as shown in Attachment 2.

4. Other impacts

a) Noise and air emissions and contamination

The Panel accepted evidence in relation to noise, air quality and contamination. The Panel commented that it considered the development could meet its GED requirements in the future by maximising the separation distance to Burwood Highway.

The Panel accepted that the EAO was the appropriate response to potential land contamination.

Officer comments

Council officers note the comments of the Panel.

Officer conclusion - No changes are required to the Amendment as a result.

b) Integrated stormwater management

The Panel decided to take a conservative approach to stormwater management given the information available. The Panel concluded that an indicative detention basin is required to be included in Concept Plan in the south-western corner of the site. The indicative size should allow a sufficient footprint to accommodate Council’s potential maintenance requirements.

The Panel rejected the view of Mr Templeton, presented at the Panel that other drainage options were available and that a basin may not even be required.

The Panel agreed with the minor changes suggested by Council in relation to stormwater management and infrastructure in DDO6.

Officer comments

Council officers note the comments of the Panel and accepts its recommendations.

Officer conclusion – That Council adopts an updated version of the Concept Plan to show an indicative location for the stormwater detention basin and the updated version of DDO6 as shown in Attachment 2.

c) Civil services

The Panel considered the opportunity to appropriately service the site is consistent with many urban renewal sites. The site will likely require the construction of new connections to authority infrastructure in conjunction with overall site construction and will ultimately require approvals from the various authorities for the development to proceed.

Officer comments

Council officers note the comments of the Panel and accepts its recommendation.

Officer conclusion - No changes are required to the Amendment as a result.

Post-exhibition changes

The Panel recommended changes to the drafting of the DDO6 control. The Panel included a tracked change version of the control at Appendix D of its report (Panel Report, page 61). However, the ‘baseline’ document used to track the change was not the exhibited version of the DDO6. Instead, the Panel used a version of the DDO6 put forward by the proponent that already incorporated revisions that were discussed during the Panel hearing, some of which officers did not support.

To clarify the revisions to the exhibited controls the following attachments are included:

· Attachment 2 is the exhibited version of all the amendment documents with the changes put forward during the Panel hearing, those contained in the Panel recommendations, plus other minor revisions by officers post-panel as discussed below. The changes are tracked and annotated with the officer assessment and affect the following:

o DDO6,

o SLO10,

o Heritage Statement of Significance

o Statement of Tree Significance.

· Attachment 3 is the exhibited version of all the amendment documents, plus the above changes in a clean version for adoption.

To summarise the revisions presented by Council officers at the hearing:

DDO6

The most significant change to the DDO6 was the deletion of the notice exemption (in clause 2). This was deleted on the basis that the exemption would be largely inoperative and that it would not be appropriate to exempt the development from the usual notice requirements given the concerns raised by Victoria Grange. Council officers also accepted during the hearing that the Concept Plan in the DDO needed to be clarified.

Unnecessary content clearly covered elsewhere in the planning scheme has been removed.

SLO10

The changes to the SLO10 were minor in nature and related to the refining and clarifying the language.

Statement of Heritage Significance

The changes to the Statement of Heritage Significance were minor in nature, including clarifying the language and correcting a reference in the statement.

Other post-Panel changes to the DDO6

As outlined above, the Panel made some recommendations about how the building height exemptions should be expressed. Upon further reflection and a review of Tribunal decisions, Council officers have recommended further simplification of the building height.

‘Building height’ is defined in the Planning Scheme as ‘The vertical distance from natural ground level to the roof or parapet at any point’.

It is Council officer’s understanding that basic lift overrun / service structures or features do not form part of the ‘building height’ calculation (as they are not part of the roof or parapet). However, if an elaborate lift structure is proposed then this could form part of the roofed element of the building, and therefore be included in the ‘building height’ calculation. On this basis, there is no need to specify allowable exclusions from the building height control

Other changes proposed by officers in the DDO6 and shown in Appendix 2 include:

· Removing the sensitive interface symbol in the Concept Plan as all the interfaces are sensitive except Burwood Highway

· Simplification of the wording for the mandatory minimum building setbacks

· The requirement for tree replacement planting should relate to all trees, not just high and medium value trees removed

· Clarifying that the existing landscape concept is the design by Beryl Mann

· Clarifying that an arborist assessment deals with ‘health and structure’, not just ‘health’ of trees

· Clarifying that a Landscape Report is also to be accompanied by a plan

· Minor edits for grammar, consistency or clarity.

Options

Council must now decide whether to abandon or adopt the Amendment.

Option 1:

Council may resolve to adopt the amendment as exhibited (with no changes). There are changes arising from the panel process that are valid. These changes respond to submissions made by Council and parties, and assist the proposed planning controls.

Option 1 is not recommended.

Option 2:

Council could resolve to adopt the amendment with all of the changes as recommended by the Panel. All of the Panel changes recommended to the SLO10, and to the heritage and tree Statements of Significance are supported.

While most of the changes put forward by the Panel in relation to DDO6 are supported by officers, the wording of some changes is not fully supported. For example:

· Aspects requiring wording clarity such as:

o vehicle access in the building setback areas [There is an error in the Panel’s preferred Schedule to the DDO at section 2 where reference to “vehicular” access in the mandatory setback has not been deleted in accordance with the Panel recommendations 2 f) and 3 c)];

o additional wording in relation to architecture and urban design of the built forms such as separation of the built form and recessive upper levels and gaps in built form, etc which can be adequately accommodated with minor rewording to the exhibited text and refinement of the Concept Plan as recommended by the Panel;

o built form that involves basements (ie: apartments not the townhouses).

· Superfluous or unnecessary content such as:

o allowances for exceeding building height

o matters that are dealt with in other parts of the planning scheme;

· Minor grammatical changes and language edits.

Option 2 is not recommended as changing the amendment in accordance with all of the Panel recommendations may result in some unintended consequences and ordinance that is unclear or difficult to interpret at the planning permit application stage.

Option 3:

Council could resolve to adopt the amendment with the changes tracked in Appendix 2 and discussed in this report which includes a combination of Panel recommendations that are supported plus additional minor changes by officers.

Option 3 is preferred and supports the majority of the Panel recommendations. This option requires Council to provide clear planning justifications as to why any of the changes recommended by the Panel are not supported, which this report together with Appendix 2 endeavour to do.

Option 4:

Council may resolve to abandon the amendment and the site would remain in the Transport Zone which is not an appropriate zone to allow for future development of the now privately owned land. Further, the Panel acknowledges that overall, the amendment is well founded and strategically justified.

Option 4 is not recommended.

Given the clear recommendation of the Panel that Council should adopt the Amendment, with changes, it is proposed that Council proceed with the amendment, but as per Option 3. As noted above, Option 3 is recommended with changes largely recommended by the Panel but with some modified and additional changes recommended by officers specifically in relation to DDO6.

If adopted, the amendment must be submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.

SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS

Legislative and Risk Implications

There are no legal or risk implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report. However, Council has an obligation under section 27 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to consider the Panel's report before deciding whether or not to adopt Amendment C230. If it decides to adopt the amendment (or part of it) with or without changes, under section 31 of the Act, Council must submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning with the prescribed information within 10 business days of that decision.

Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

Community Engagement

The community has been appropriately engaged through formal exhibition of Amendment C230 as required under the Act. The exhibition process provided the opportunity for the community to make submissions about the amendment and those submissions were considered by Council. Further, submissions were considered by an independent Planning Panel where submitters had a further opportunity to be heard at the Panel hearing.

Financial and Resource Implications

Where an amendment has been requested by a proponent, there are costs associated with the process that are passed onto the proponent. These costs principally include the statutory fees and Planning Panel charges set out below and have been paid by the proponent.

Statutory fees including: request for an amendment, consideration of more than 20 submissions and to adopt the amendment.	$45,122
Planning Panels Victoria charges	$35,163
Total	$80,285

Costs to Council for the amendment included assistance and representation at the Panel hearing by a planning consultant, officer time and advice from Council’s Heritage Advisor and consulting arborist. These costs are covered in Council’s operational budget.

Innovation and Continuous Improvement

There are no innovation and continuous improvement matters arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

Collaboration

Input is being sought from DTP on the traffic issues raised by the Panel however at the time of this report no formal response had been received.

Conflict of Interest

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Conclusion

The Panel report received for Amendment C230whse supports rezoning of the former ARRB site, the overlays to be applied and the updated heritage statement of significance. While the Panel has recommended refinements to the amendment, primarily to the DDO6, overall it considered the amendment to be strategically justified.

Having reviewed the Panel report for Amendment C230whse, it is considered that the amendment at Attachment 3 can be adopted with the changes discussed in this report which include most but not all of the Panel recommendations plus minor officer recommended changes.

Attachment

1 Panel Report Amendment C230whse

2 C230whse Amendment Documents - With Tracked Changes

3 C230whse Amendment Documents - Clean Version for Adoption

Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes 10 July 2023

10.2 Amendment C241whse - Consideration of Panel Report for Development Contributions

City Planning and Development
City Development
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the Panel’s recommendation for Amendment C241whse (the amendment) and Officers’ response to the changes recommended by the Panel. The report also seeks Council’s resolution to adopt the revised Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan, 2023 (Whitehorse DCP) and the revised Amendment C241whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, and submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning (the Minister) for approval.

Currently, other than the Open Space Contributions required under the Subdivision Act, 1988 and voluntary contributions made under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 (the Act) there are no other mechanisms available within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme for Council to collect contributions from developments towards providing the necessary infrastructure to its community.

Council prepared the Whitehorse DCP and Amendment C241whse to implement the DCP into the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The proposed Schedule 1 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO1) will allow for Council to collect DCP levies from new developments to help fund the essential infrastructure that Council delivers.

Public Exhibition of the amendment and the Whitehorse DCP was undertaken for a period of one month from 10 November, 2022. A total of 14 submissions including two supporting submissions and four unrelated submissions were received. Council at its Meeting on 27 February, 2023, considered the submissions and resolved to request the Minister to appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the submissions to the amendment.

The Panel held a Directions Hearing on 29 March 2023. Council was the only party wishing to be heard by the Panel, however a formal hearing was not held and the Panel considered the submissions ‘on the papers’. Council provided a written submission to the Panel along with an Expert Witness Statement from Hill PDA Consultants who prepared the Whitehorse DCP.

Council received the Panel Report on 22 May 2023 (Attachment 1). The Panel supports the amendment and recommends the amendment to be adopted as exhibited subject to the changes recommended in its report.

The Panel lists three changes to the exhibited documents which are provided in Table 1 below with Officers’ response. It is noted that, majority of the changes recommended by the Panel were put forwarded by the Officers in response to the submissions received in Council’s submission to the Panel. The changes are minor and non-technical in nature. Most of the recommended changes are to the Whitehorse DCP, and subsequent changes to the exhibited Schedule 1 to the DCPO, Clauses 21.07 and 21.08 and Schedule to Clause 72.04 of the Planning Scheme. One of the changes seeks to change the regular review period of the DCP from four years (as specified in the exhibited DCP) to three years. Another change seeks correction to a typographical error on the proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO.

Officers agree with the changes recommended by the Panel and revised the Whitehorse DCP (as shown in Attachment 2) and the planning provisions proposed by Amendment C241whse (as shown in Attachment 3) accordingly. The revised DCP and the amendment are submitted for Council’s consideration and adoption.

Subject to Council’s decision, the adopted Whitehorse DCP and the amendment will be submitted to the Minister for approval. All the submitters to the amendment will be notified of Council’s decision.

Given Panel’s recommendation to Council to adopt the amendment, and the minor non-technical nature of the changes recommended, Officers believe that, the approval of the amendment by the Minister would be straightforward and the amendment could be gazetted in the coming months.

Council need to be prepared to implement the DCP from the date of gazettal. This includes engaging a DCP Officer in year one (as anticipated in the budget allocation), a part-time administration officer and making the required changes to the relevant internal systems to record various DCP income and expenditure details. It is estimated that the cost of engaging the DCP Officer for the first two years could cost Council up to $110,000 each year, thereafter, approximately $60,000 per year would be required. The part-time DCP Administration Officer at 0.4 EFT for the life of the DCP could cost Council up to $32,475 per year as an ongoing cost.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Liu, Seconded by Cr McNeill

That Council, being the Planning Authority, and having considered the Panel Report at Attachment 1 for Amendment C241whse under Section 27 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 (‘the Act’):

1. Adopts the revised Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan, 2023 with the changes recommended by the Planning Panel as shown in Attachment 2.

2. Adopts the revised Amendment C241whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme with the changes recommended by the Planning Panel as shown in Attachment 3, in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Act and as recommended by the Planning Panel.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C241whse and the Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan, 2023 to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31 of the Act with the appropriate fee.

4. Authorises the Director City Development to undertake minor administrative changes to the amendment and the Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan, 2023 that do not change the intent of the amendment.

5. Advises all submitters to the Amendment C241whse of this resolution.

6. Notes the overall ongoing budget commitment required to administer the Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan, 2023, and commits to the identified ongoing cost of employing a DCP Officer and a DCP Administration Officer required for the implementation of the Whitehorse DCP.

Carried Unanimously

Key Matters

· The Panel Report for Amendment C241whse was received on 22 May 2023. The Panel is generally supportive of the amendment and recommends it to be adopted as exhibited subject three minor changes to the exhibited documents. The majority of the changes were submitted by Officers in Council’s submission to the Panel, and the Panel supports Officers’ suggested changes.

· This report recommends that Council adopt the revised Whitehorse DCP and the amendment to proceed to the next and final stage of the amendment seeking Minister’s approval.

· Given Panel’s recommendations to adopt the amendment with minor and non-technical changes to the exhibited documents, the approval of the amendment by the Minister is expected to be straightforward. The amendment would become effective from the date that the Minister publishes the Notice of Approval of the amendment on the Victorian Government gazette. Officers believe the amendment could be approved in the coming months.

· The proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO in the Planning Scheme would allow for Council to be able to collect contributions form new developments towards funding the required infrastructure for the growing Whitehorse community and businesses.

· Council need to be prepared and ready to implement the DCP from the date of gazettal. This requires the engagement of a DCP Officer, required updates to the relevant internal systems, internal training and external DCP awareness communication.

· The estimated cost of implementing the DCP for the first two years would be approximately $142, 475 each year (cost of engaging a fulltime DCP Officer and a part-time DCP Administration Officer). The ongoing cost thereafter for the life of the DCP would be approximately $92,475 per annum (cost of engaging a part-time DCP Officer and a part-time DCP Administration Officer).

Strategic Alignment

The project will support many of the priorities of the Whitehorse 2040: Community Vision, under Theme 2 (Movement and Public Spaces), by collecting funds for important capital works projects that improve public spaces and mobility within the municipality.

In particular, the DCP responds to two key areas of the Council Plan 2021-2025 (2021) as outlined below:

· Strategic Direction 4: Our Built Environment: Movement, and Public Places:

The project supports the objectives of this Direction by generating funds towards delivering new and upgraded facilities for the local communities.

· Strategic Direction 8: Governance and Leadership:

A municipal wide DCP with a 20-year timeframe provides Council with an additional income stream that will support its long term financial sustainability, particularly in a rate capping environment, thereby supporting strategy 8.2.2 of the Council Plan.

Policy

· Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 (2017), identifies areas expected to accommodate significant growth and change. In particular, the Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre and four Major Activity Centres within the municipality are expected to accommodate a large portion of growth in the municipality.

· Similarly, the Suburban Rail Loop – East underground train tunnel project (SRL- East) between Cheltenham and Box Hill aims to connect major employment, health, education and retail destinations in Melbourne’s east and south east. Although the detail of the development implications of this project is yet to be prepared by the State, it is expected that the project would contribute to the increase in residential, retail and commercial development within Box Hill and Burwood areas.

The above anticipated growth and change in Whitehorse is expected to increase the demand for local infrastructure. The DCP will contribute to fund the needed infrastructure for the growing communities and businesses.

· The State policy in the Planning Scheme under Clause 19.03-1S (Development and infrastructure contributions plans) encourages the use of DCP for collecting contributions towards providing the required infrastructure.

· Clause 21.08 (Infrastructure) of the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, recognises the policy gap of not having an appropriate planning tool within the Planning Scheme to collect contributions from new developments. It requires investigation of appropriate tools and locations for requiring Development Contributions across the municipality.

The Whitehorse DCP and Amendment C241whse are direct responses to implementing the above strategies.

background

Council has prepared the Whitehorse DCP and Amendment C241whse to implement the DCP into the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The amendment proposes to apply Schedule 1 to Clause 45.06 – Development Contributions Plan Overlay to all land within the municipality, make minor policy changes to Clauses 21.07 (Economic Development) and 21.08 (Infrastructure) and insert the Whitehorse DCP as an Incorporated Document in Schedule to Clause 72.04 (Incorporated Document) of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

The amendment and the DCP was placed on public exhibition for a period of one month from 10 November 2022, and attracted 14 submissions including two supporting and four unrelated submissions. At its Meeting on 27 February, 2023, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Planning Panel. A Directions Hearing was held on 29 March 2023. Council was the only registered party to be heard by the Panel, as such, the Panel considered the submissions ‘on the papers’, and submitted its report to Council on 22 May 2023.

The Panel supports the amendment and recommends it to be adopted as exhibited subject three minor changes to the exhibited documents. Officers reviewed and agree with the changes recommended by the Panel. Panel’s recommended changes and Officers’ response are discussed below.

Discussion and Options

This section discusses the changes recommended by the Panel with Officers’ response in Table 1 below, and outlines the options available for Council on the next step with the amendment.

The Panel in its report recommends that:

“Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C241whse be adopted as exhibited subject to the following [changes]…”

Table 1: Changes recommended by the Panel and Officers’ response

Changes recommended by the Panel	Officers’ response
Changes recommended 1: Change Section 7.8 of the Development Contributions Plan by: a) Amending the first sentence to read: “The DCP should be reviewed on a regular basis (such as every three years)…”	Accept the change recommended by the Panel. 1a) The exhibited DCP proposes to review the DCP every four years. The Panel acknowledges the standard practice of a four review in other Councils. However, it refers the State’s DCP guidelines which suggests as a good practice to review DCPs at the same time Councils review their Municipal Strategic Statements (now Municipal Planning Strategy). The Panel recommends to change the review period of the Whitehorse DCP to every three years. The Panel did not want to specify a mandatory review time as suggested in one of the submissions. The Panel notes that DCPs should be reviewed anytime as needed and that a time should not be specified. The next review of the Whitehorse DCP to be undertaken in 3 years (from the date of gazettal) as recommended by the Panel would be beneficial for Council. This would allow for Council to be able to include new infrastructure projects from the strategic works that are currently underway in the DCP earlier. In particular the Whitehorse Open Space Strategy and the Whitehorse Flood Mapping Strategy (which would subsequently inform infrastructure upgrades and renewals required to address the ‘flood hot spots’ across the municipality), would have major infrastructure projects that need to be included in the DCP. This would also allow for Council to collect more contributions from developments and deliver the required infrastructure faster to meet the growing needs of Whitehorse community and businesses. Action: The Whitehorse DCP has been amended as per the change recommended by the Panel.
Changes recommended 2: Change the Development Contributions Plan by: a) inserting the following text on page 30 immediately after Table 6: While, for non-residential development in any charge area, the levy per square metre is 5 cents or less after indexation, the levy payable for non-residential development in that charge area is deemed to be zero. b) removing ‘before cap’ from the second last dot point on page 74 and removing the final dot point on page 74 (which is a duplicate) c ) removing ‘before cap’ from the titles of the final two columns in Table 19 on page 75 d) italicising the document title Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan throughout e) italicising the title of legislations throughout f) updating the date of the document (and making consequential changes to the Schedule to Clause 72.04 Documents Incorporated in this Planning Scheme).	Accept the changes recommended by the Panel. · The change recommended in 2a) is to provide clarity regarding low value DCP contributions from non-residential developments. Contributions that are 5 cents or less (after indexation) impose administrative burden for Council to collect and report, and that they should be nullified and to be deemed zero. For example, in the proposed DCP there could less than one cent per square metre of floor space of industrial development which could yield very low contributions. For the above reason, Council in its submission to the Panel stated that, Council will not collect levies under a certain threshold, which was supported by the Panel through this change. · The changes recommended in 2b) and 2c) are to improve the readability and clarity of the referred sections of the Whitehorse DCP as a response to a submission. · Changes recommended in 2d) and 2e) relate to the style of formally referring documents and legislations within the DCP and in the proposed planning provisions. · Change recommended in 2f) is to ensure the date of the Whitehorse DCP (as part of the title of the DCP document) is changed to the adopted date by Council and referred accordingly in the Schedule to Clause 72.04 (Incorporated Documents) of the Planning Scheme. Action: The Whitehorse DCP and the proposed planning provisions have been amended as per the changes recommended by the Panel.
Changes recommended 3: Change Clause 3.0 Summary of Contributions in the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 by: a) correcting the amount of the levy for retail in Area 02 to $1.44 (from $1.14) in the second table ‘Levies payable by non-residential development’ b) inserting the following as a new fourth paragraph in the ‘Notes’ section below the tables: The Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan (Whitehorse City Council, 2022) provides that while, for non-residential development in any charge area, the levy per square metre is 5 cents or less after indexation, the levy payable for non-residential development in that charge area is deemed to be zero. c) reversing the order of bullet points 2 and 3 in the ‘Notes’ section below the tables.	Accept the changes recommended by the Panel. · Change recommended in 2a) is to correct a misprint in the proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO. · Change recommended by 3b) is on the proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO, corresponding change recommended above under 2a) on the DCP to remove the administrative burden of collecting and reporting on low value DCP contributions from non-residential developments that are 5 cents or less (after indexation). · Change recommended in 3c) is to arrange the ‘Notes’ in the proposed Schedule 1 to the DPO in a logical order to improve the readability of the schedule. Action: The proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO has been amended as per the changes recommended by the Panel.

Changes recommended

by the Panel

Officers’ response

Changes recommended 1:

Change Section 7.8 of the Development Contributions Plan by:

a) Amending the first sentence to read:

“The DCP should be reviewed on a regular basis (such as every three years)…”

Accept the change recommended by the Panel.

1a) The exhibited DCP proposes to review the DCP every four years. The Panel acknowledges the standard practice of a four review in other Councils. However, it refers the State’s DCP guidelines which suggests as a good practice to review DCPs at the same time Councils review their Municipal Strategic Statements (now Municipal Planning Strategy). The Panel recommends to change the review period of the Whitehorse DCP to every three years. The Panel did not want to specify a mandatory review time as suggested in one of the submissions. The Panel notes that DCPs should be reviewed anytime as needed and that a time should not be specified.

The next review of the Whitehorse DCP to be undertaken in 3 years (from the date of gazettal) as recommended by the Panel would be beneficial for Council. This would allow for Council to be able to include new infrastructure projects from the strategic works that are currently underway in the DCP earlier. In particular the Whitehorse Open Space Strategy and the Whitehorse Flood Mapping Strategy (which would subsequently inform infrastructure upgrades and renewals required to address the ‘flood hot spots’ across the municipality), would have major infrastructure projects that need to be included in the DCP. This would also allow for Council to collect more contributions from developments and deliver the required infrastructure faster to meet the growing needs of Whitehorse community and businesses.

Action:

The Whitehorse DCP has been amended as per the change recommended by the Panel.

Changes recommended 2:

Change the Development Contributions Plan by:

a) inserting the following text on page 30 immediately after Table 6:

While, for non-residential development in any charge area, the levy per square metre is 5 cents or less after indexation, the levy payable for non-residential development in that charge area is deemed to be zero.

b) removing ‘before cap’ from the second last dot point on page 74 and removing the final dot point on page 74 (which is a duplicate)

c ) removing ‘before cap’ from the titles of the final two columns in Table 19 on page 75

d) italicising the document title Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan throughout

e) italicising the title of legislations throughout

f) updating the date of the document (and making consequential changes to the Schedule to Clause 72.04 Documents Incorporated in this Planning Scheme).

Accept the changes recommended by the Panel.

· The change recommended in 2a) is to provide clarity regarding low value DCP contributions from non-residential developments. Contributions that are 5 cents or less (after indexation) impose administrative burden for Council to collect and report, and that they should be nullified and to be deemed zero. For example, in the proposed DCP there could less than one cent per square metre of floor space of industrial development which could yield very low contributions.

For the above reason, Council in its submission to the Panel stated that, Council will not collect levies under a certain threshold, which was supported by the Panel through this change.

· The changes recommended in 2b) and 2c) are to improve the readability and clarity of the referred sections of the Whitehorse DCP as a response to a submission.

· Changes recommended in 2d) and 2e) relate to the style of formally referring documents and legislations within the DCP and in the proposed planning provisions.

· Change recommended in 2f) is to ensure the date of the Whitehorse DCP (as part of the title of the DCP document) is changed to the adopted date by Council and referred accordingly in the Schedule to Clause 72.04 (Incorporated Documents) of the Planning Scheme.

Action:

The Whitehorse DCP and the proposed planning provisions have been amended as per the changes recommended by the Panel.

Changes recommended 3:

Change Clause 3.0 Summary of Contributions in the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 1 by:

a) correcting the amount of the levy for retail in Area 02 to $1.44 (from $1.14) in the second table ‘Levies payable by non-residential development’

b) inserting the following as a new fourth paragraph in the ‘Notes’ section below the tables:

The Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan (Whitehorse City Council, 2022) provides that while, for non-residential development in any charge area, the levy per square metre is 5 cents or less after indexation, the levy payable for non-residential development in that charge area is deemed to be zero.

c) reversing the order of bullet points 2 and 3 in the ‘Notes’ section below the tables.

Accept the changes recommended by the Panel.

· Change recommended in 2a) is to correct a misprint in the proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO.

· Change recommended by 3b) is on the proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO, corresponding change recommended above under 2a) on the DCP to remove the administrative burden of collecting and reporting on low value DCP contributions from non-residential developments that are 5 cents or less (after indexation).

· Change recommended in 3c) is to arrange the ‘Notes’ in the proposed Schedule 1 to the DPO in a logical order to improve the readability of the schedule.

Action:

The proposed Schedule 1 to the DCPO has been amended as per the changes recommended by the Panel.

As noted above the changes recommended by the Panel are largely those suggested by Officers in Council’s submission. Most of the changes are in the Whitehorse DCP to provide clarity for the DCP users. They are minor and non-technical in nature. The changes require subsequent changes to the exhibited Schedule 1 to the DCPO, Clauses 21.07 and 21.08 and Schedule to Clause 72.04.

Overall the Panel finds that:

“The Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the Planning Policy Framework (particularly Clause 19 [infrastructure]). It is well founded and strategically justified, and should proceed subject to some minor adjustments, edits and corrections”

(page 7, Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C241whse, Panel Report, 22 May 2023).

Officers recommend that, Council adopt the amendment and the DCP with the changes recommended in the Panel report, and submit the amendment to the Minister for approval.

Subject to Council’s decision and the Minister’s approval, the amendment will become effective from the date of gazettal. Given Panel’s recommendation to adopt the amendment with minor non-technical changes to the exhibited documents, Officers believe the approval of the amendment could be straightforward and may occur in the coming months.

Council needs to prepare to implement the DCP from the date of gazettal. Key actions required to be undertaken include the following:

· Appointment of the DCP Officer.

· Relevant changes to the internal operating system, Pathway that processes the planning permit applications, and records details of Building Permits issued by external Building Surveyors. In addition, the Finance operating system will also need to be adapted to record DCP contributions received and expenditure on DCP projects.

· Relevant internal teams need to be trained in using, administrating, implementing, recording and reporting on the DCP and attending to relevant customer enquiries.

· Externally, Building Surveyors issuing Building Permits for land within the City of Whitehorse, planning and building consultants working on permit applications for land within the municipality, State agencies and utility providers that own land within the municipality and the general public should also be made aware of the approval of the amendment.

· Updates to Whitehorse DCP project and Amendment C241whse webpages with the approved versions of the DCP and the approved planning provisions.

· A dedicated DCP customer webpage with Whitehorse DCP Calculator, details of contributions applied to individual Charge Areas for different land use categories and frequently asked questions with links to the relevant DCP webpages.

Options

Option 1:

Council could resolve to adopt the revised amendment and the Whitehorse DCP that incorporates the changes recommended by the Panel and submit the amendment and the DCP to the Minister for approval.

Council adopting the amendment and the DCP would allow for Council to proceed to the next and final stage of the amendment seeking Minister’s approval. The amendment becomes effective from the date the Minister publishes the Notice of Approval of the amendment in the Victorian Government Gazette. From this date, Council would be able to collect contributions from new developments towards providing the necessary infrastructure to meet the growing needs of Whitehorse community and businesses.

Option 2:

Council may resolve not to accept one or more of the changes recommended by the Panel, and adopt the amendment and the DCP as exhibited (with no changes), or with some of the changes recommended by the Panel and submit the amendment for the Minister’s approval.

This Option would require Council to provide clear planning justifications as to why one or more of the changes recommended by the Panel are not acceptable to Council.

Option 3:

Council may resolve to abandon the amendment for the reasons outlined in its decision.

This Option would not provide Council with the ability to collect contributions from new developments towards providing the necessary infrastructure planned for in the municipality. The current policy gap of not having the right planning tool in the planning scheme to collect contributions will remain unchanged. If Council wishes to include a DCP in the planning scheme in the future, it would need to start the entire amendment process again.

Of the three Options outlined above, Officers recommend Option 1. A municipal-wide DCP is required in Whitehorse to support the provision of the necessary infrastructure to meet the rapidly growing demand. In a rate capping environment, delivery of Council’s capital works program is under strain. Further, not having a DCP within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme is a policy gap. This was identified in the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) report in 2020 on Managing Development Contributions that Council is missing out on potential contributions from increased development activities in the municipality.

The Panel also acknowledges that the amendment is well founded and strategically justified, and should proceed subject to the minor changes recommended in its report. The proposed DCPO1 would address the policy gap issue in the Planning Scheme and would provide the statutory powers for Council to collect contributions from future developments.

SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS

Legislative and Risk Implications

There are no legal risks arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

If Council resolves to adopt the amendment and the Whitehorse DCP, the amendment will be submitted to the Minister for approval. Council must adhere to the requirements of the Ministerial Direction No.15 - The Planning Scheme Amendment Process and relevant sections of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 with respect to rest of the planning scheme amendment process.

Subject to Minister’s approval, Council will need to comply with the relevant requirements under Part 3B – Development Contributions of the Act, and the Ministerial Reporting Requirements for Development Contributions Plans issued by the Minister under section 46QD of the Act, for the life of the DCP. The Ministerial Direction, among other things, outlines the mandatory annual reporting requirements of the DCP to the Minister, and requires that “If the collecting agency [the agency that collects the DCP] or development agency [the agency that delivers the infrastructure on the ground] is a municipal council, the report [annual report to the Minister on the DCP] must be included in the report of operations contained in the council’s annual report prepared under the Local Government Act 1989”.

Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006. It is considered that implementing the DCP does not raise any material human rights issues.

Council constantly upgrades the existing infrastructure and provides new infrastructure to meet the needs of changing and growing communities. Collecting contributions from new developments that generate the demand for additional infrastructure is appropriate and fair.

Community Engagement

The following notifications were undertaken for the amendment:

During public exhibition:

· Notice of the amendment was published in The Age newspaper and the Victorian Government Gazette at the beginning of the public exhibition. A reminder notice was republished in The Age 11 days before the closing date for submissions.

· Hard copies of the amendment and the Draft DCP were placed for public view at all Council’s Service Centres and libraries.

· Direct notices were sent to the Prescribed Ministers, Suburban Rail Loop Authority (as per the condition in the Authorisation), and other relevant State agencies and adjoining municipalities.

· A dedicated Amendment C241whse webpage was developed with the amendment documents and the Draft DCP, frequently asked questions about the DCP and information on how to make submissions and the process thereafter.

· Information was provided through Council’s Facebook, Whitehorse Your Say page and Whitehorse News (November and December, 2022 editions) with the link to the amendment webpage.

· Council’s Customer Service phone system included an ‘on-hold’ message about the amendment guiding callers to the webpages

· Exhibition information was displayed on Council’s Digital Display Screen located at the foyer of Council’s Nunawading Service Centre, and included in outgoing emails of City Development Department staff.

· The (former) Department of Environment Land Water and Planning published the amendment documents on the ‘Amendments Online’ webpage.

Receipt of the Panel Report:

· The Panel Report was sent to all the submitters on 30 May 2023.

· Council’s Strategic Planning Projects webpage and Amendment C241whse webpages have been updated with the Panel Report.

· Hard copies of the Panel Report have been placed at Council’s Service Centres for public viewing.

Future Notifications:

· Subject to Council’s adoption and Minister’s approval, a Notice of Approval of the amendment will be published in The Age newspaper, Council websites, social media platforms and the Whitehorse News.

· The approval of Amendment C241whse will be published on the Victorian Government Gazette by the Minister.

· Private Building Surveyors working on land within the municipality will be directly notified of the approval of the amendment.

Financial and Resource Implications

Table 2 - Project Budget – Cost and Expenditure

	Budget (Excl. GST)	Expenditure (Excl. GST)
2020/21 Financial Year	$200,000
2021/22 Financial Year ($200,000 unspent amount carried forward to 2022/23 year)	$200,000
Consultancy
2020/21 Financial Year		$59,400
2021/22 Financial Year		$97,929
2022/23 Financial year		$13,865
Legal review of the Draft DCP		$3,960
Public Exhibition cost
Notice on the Government Gazette and The Age		$5,071
Panel Hearing costs
Planning Panel Victoria’s fees		$2,972
Planning Legal Service (during the Panel process)		$8876
Expert Witness Statement by HillPDA Consultants		$9,360
Future costs
Approval stage fee to the Minister		$488
Notice of approval on the Government Gazette and The Age		$4,400
System costs to calculate and administer the DCP*		$25,000
Staffing cost – Year 1 of the DCP operation (Full-time DCP Officer and a part-time DCP Admin Officer)		$142, 475
Total	$400,000	$373, 796

* At this stage system costs are indicative only. More accurate cost will be available after they have been completed.

Table 3 – Estimated ongoing cost of implementing the Whitehorse DCP

* At this stage system costs are indicative only. More accurate cost will be available after they have been completed.

Item	Cost at Year 2	Ongoing cost after Year 2
DCP Officer – Year 2 (Fulltime)	$110,000
DCP Administration Officer - Year 2 (Part-time)	$32,475
Total cost in Year 2	$142, 475
DCP Officer ongoing after Year 2 each year (Part-time)		$60,000
DCP Admin Officer ongoing after Year 2 each year (Part-time)		$32,475
Total ongoing cost after Year 2		$92,475

It is noted that, as identified in the HillPDA work, additional resources would be required to support the ongoing implementation of the DCP. In an established area municipal context, such as Whitehorse, it is anticipated a fulltime DCP Officer role (at least at a Band 6 level) would be required during the initial set up of the DCP and the first two years of its operation. It may then be possible to reduce the position to 0.5 EFT for the remainder of the life of the DCP. In addition, a part-time 0.4 EFT Administration Officer will also be required at Band 4 at an ongoing basis for implementing the DCP. In summary, implementing and operating the DCP could cost Council up to $142,475 each year for the first two years (cost of a fulltime DCP Officer and a part-time DCP Administration Officer), and approximately $92,500 for the remaining years of the DCP (cost of a part-time DCP Officer and a part-time DCP Administration Officer). In addition, the regular review of the DCP (every three years as recommended by the Panel) and the subsequent amendments to the planning scheme for the life of the DCP will require ongoing resource commitment.

The proposed DCP will fund approximately 15% of the total cost of the identified projects. Council would need to source the balance of approximately 85% of the cost of the identified projects to deliver them over a 20 year lifespan of the DCP.

However, at the next review of the DCP, additional infrastructure projects would be added to the DCP. In particular, the current Whitehorse Open Space Strategy and the Whitehorse Flood Mapping Strategy (which on completion would inform infrastructure upgrades and renewals required to address ‘flood hot spots’ across the municipality), would contain new infrastructure projects that need to be included in the DCP. Along with these, additional projects form Council’s Capital Works Program (such as road, footpath, streetscape, sporting and community facility projects) could be added at the next review. This would increase contributions collectable and Council would be able to provide the identified infrastructure faster.

Innovation and Continuous Improvement

The project offers opportunity for innovation and continuous improvement. As part of implementing and administrating the Whitehorse DCP, Council need to develop an online DCP Calculator that can calculate DCP charges applicable for individual proposals. An Excel spreadsheet has already been prepared for internal use, this would be converted into an online tool for external users. This tool would provide accurate contributions details and will eliminate any human errors in calculating DCP charges.

Regular review of the DCP will offer opportunities for process improvements in administrating, implementing, recording and reporting on the DCP.

Collaboration

A number of internal teams provided input to inform the DCP projects, cost details and Council’s submission to the Planning Panel. Future reviews and implementation of the DCP over a 20-year period would also require ongoing collaboration between relevant internal teams including Statutory Planning, Strategic Planning, Finance, Capital Works, Engineering Approvals, Design and Construction and Project Delivery, City Planning and Development Administration and Customer Service teams.

Council officers worked closely with the Department of Transport and Planning’s (DTP) Regional Planning Team, throughout the project, and Planning Panels Victoria during the Panel process. Officers will continue to work with DTP during the approval process of the amendment and in future reviews of the DCP.

Conflict of Interest

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Conclusion

The Planning Panel for Amendment C241whse recommends that the amendment should be adopted as exhibited subject to minor changes to the exhibited documents. Officers reviewed and agree the changes recommended by the Panel and revised the documents accordingly for Council’s consideration and adoption. The changes recommended by the Panel would enhance the readability and clarity of the exhibited documents.

Council could adopt the revised amendment and the DCP and submit to the Minister for approval. Subject to Minister’s approval, the Whitehorse DCP would become effective from the date the Minister publishes the approval of the amendment on the Victorian Government Gazette. Having a municipal wide DCP in the Planning Scheme would provide the statutory powers for Council to collect contributions from new developments to deliver the infrastructure required to meet the growing needs of Whitehorse community and businesses.

Attachment

1 Amendment C241 whse - Panel Report 22 May 2023

2 Amendment C241whse - Whitehorse Development Contributions Plan June 2023 (revised Post Panel version for adoption)

3 Whitehorse C241whse - Revised Post Panel documents and maps for adoption

Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes 10 July 2023

10.4 Affordable Housing Policy 2023

Community Engagement and Development
Community Services
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

A review has been undertaken of Council’s 2010 Affordable Housing Policy and a revised Affordable Housing Policy 2023 (Draft Policy) prepared (Attachment 1). The revised Policy provides Council’s position to guide and facilitate the provision of affordable housing on public and private land through appropriate and effective advocacy, facilitation and planning.

The revised Policy has been informed by a second round of community engagement involving exhibition of the draft revised Policy and an online survey seeking feedback on whether the revision is appropriate, fair and will improve affordable housing without negatively impacting the housing industry.

An important clause of the revised Policy is to encourage an affordable housing contribution from residential developers in defined development settings or where there is an uplift in value that is created through changes in planning controls over specific sites or precincts.

Community feedback on the Draft revised Policy was generally supportive, however developers raised some concerns about how the affordable housing contribution would be administered, specifically that the contribution is transferred directly to a registered housing agency. Under a build to rent model, developers may prefer to retain ownership of the dwellings.

Council has revised the Policy to no longer require developers to transfer the contribution directly to a Registered Housing Agency, provided developers are able to demonstrate that they are meeting their ongoing requirement to provide affordable housing through regular reporting to Council.

Officers are now seeking adoption of the revised Affordable Housing Policy 2023 by Council. Council will continue to monitor the sector and may consider commencement of a planning scheme amendment process based on the Affordable Housing Policy 2023 in the future.

This Council report summarises key findings from the Community Engagement Report, with the full report attached for further information (Attachment 2).

motion

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Skilbeck

That Council adopts the Affordable Housing Policy 2023.

Cr Barker proposed the following AMENDMENT, Crs Massoud and Skilbeck as the mover and seconder did not accept the amendment:

AMENDMENT

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Davenport

That Council:

1. Defers the Affordable Housing Policy 2023 Report

2. Advocates for a review of the Victorian Government’s Vacant Residential Property Tax to encourage greater conversion of vacant private accommodation into affordable housing rentals.

The Mayor put the AMENDMENT in two parts as follows:

PART 1

That Council:

1. Defers the Affordable Housing Policy 2023 Report.

LOST

PART 2

That Council:

2. Advocates for a review of the Victorian Government’s Vacant Residential Property Tax to encourage greater conversion of vacant private accommodation into affordable housing rentals.

carried

The Motion and Part 2 of the Amendment became the substantive motion and was put the vote and became the Council Resolution as follows:

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Skilbeck

That Council:

1. Adopts the Affordable Housing Policy 2023

2. Advocates for a review of the Victorian Government’s Vacant Residential Property Tax to encourage greater conversion of vacant private accommodation into affordable housing rentals.

Carried

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr Munroe

Cr Skilbeck

Against

Cr Barker

Cr Davenport

Cr McNeill

On the results of the Division the motion was declared carried

Key Matters

Access to safe, secure and affordable housing is a challenge for many households in Whitehorse, due to a range of factors. Population growth has increased demand for housing, outpacing supply and driving up prices. Limited land availability has further exacerbated the problem and stagnant wages and increasing living costs have made it difficult for many residents to afford suitable housing.

The result is a significant shortage of affordable housing options (only 1.8 per cent of all new lettings in Whitehorse are affordable to low-income households), leaving low-income individuals and families vulnerable to housing insecurity, homelessness, and a lack of access to basic necessities. This issue necessitates urgent attention and a clear Council policy to guide and facilitate the provision of affordable housing for all.

Local government plays a crucial role in addressing affordable housing challenges. Councils have a legal obligation to facilitate the provision of affordable housing under the Planning and Environment Act. The Act states that councils can enter into voluntary Section 173 agreements with developers for the provision of affordable housing. Councils use the planning tools within the Victorian Planning Provisions to negotiate development outcomes through the planning permit process. Under the current Victorian planning framework, councils are not permitted to require developers to provide affordable housing as a mandatory requirement.

Some of the other policy and planning levers Council can enact to promote affordability include collaborating with community housing organisations and private developers to create affordable housing initiatives and prioritise the allocation of public land for affordable housing projects. Council can also advocate for state and federal funding to support affordable housing programs.

Local government faces various constraints when attempting to improve housing affordability. Planning regulations, land scarcity and high costs, community resistance to change and economic factors like market fluctuations and construction costs can hinder affordable housing development. Overcoming these constraints requires collaboration, advocacy, and community engagement to achieve sustainable housing affordability in Whitehorse.

Strategic Alignment

This report aligns with Strategic Direction 3 of the Council Plan, ‘Our Diverse and Inclusive Community’, specifically Objective 3.4 ‘Advocate for greater housing diversity including affordable and social housing’.

Policy

Council’s revised Affordable Housing Policy focuses on four key roles in relation to affordable housing, namely:

· Advocacy – representing the local community and advocating for increased funding for social and affordable housing.

· Facilitation – building relationships and brokering partnerships between registered housing agencies, developers, government agencies and other key stakeholders.

· Planning – encouraging and negotiating social and affordable housing outcomes through voluntary agreements.

· Regulation – enforcement of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and the regulation of rooming houses.

background

There have been considerable changes to the housing market since the original policy was adopted in 2010, including a need for increased supply of social and affordable housing in Whitehorse, the emergence of State Government investment and a changed policy environment. All of these factors have contributed to the decision to review the Policy.

Whitehorse City Council regularly negotiates with developers to include affordable housing in their developments, and is committed to advocating for affordable housing options within its municipality, as evident from its:

· Existing Affordable Housing Policy

· Membership in the Eastern Affordable Housing Alliance

· Membership in the Eastern/Southern region Homelessness & Social Housing Charter Group

· Regular advocacy for increased State and Federal Government investment into low-cost housing

At a Councillor Briefing in November 2022, a summary of the first phase of community engagement was provided to Council, along with a Draft Affordable Housing Policy that was endorsed by Council for further community engagement. Feedback from this second round of engagement has been carefully considered and the revised Policy updated with priorities to ensure that decisions reflect contemporary local government practice.

Discussion and Options

The attached Community Engagement Report (Attachment 2) outlines comments in response to the Draft Policy and describes Council’s position and or how this feedback has been addressed in the revised Affordable Housing Policy.

Responses were received from 55 people. Just under two thirds of survey respondents (63%) supported the Draft Policy, including 35 per cent that thought it could do more/go further. One fifth did not support the Draft Policy (22.2%) and around one in ten were unsure (14.8%).

Those who fully supported the Draft Policy acknowledged that affordable housing is an issue facing many Whitehorse residents and that access to safe and secure housing is a basic human right. They also expressed their support for the introduction of a developer contribution towards affordable housing and Council’s ongoing commitment to advocate for an increased supply of social and affordable housing.

Those who did not support the Draft Policy expressed a view that affordable housing is not the responsibility of local government and that social housing would have a negative impact on the amenity of the surrounding area as well as lowering neighbouring property values.

Support for an affordable housing contribution

When asked whether respondents would support Council seeking a voluntary affordable housing contribution, more than half of respondents (55%) answered ‘yes’. Around 17 per cent were unsure and approximately 28 per cent answered ‘no’.

The main reason respondents were ‘unsure’ was that it was unclear how Council had arrived at the contribution figure of 6 per cent and thought it should be increased.

The 6 per cent contribution figure is based on benchmarking against other local government areas and capital and lifecycle feasibility modelling undertaken by UrbanXchange and peer reviewed by SGS Economics. A 6 per cent contribution and 16 dwelling trigger point means developers who meet the minimum threshold should provide the equivalent of at least one whole dwelling as affordable housing. SGS noted there is a risk that a low initial rate of contribution would not set the appropriate signals needed to deliver the magnitude of affordable housing required in Whitehorse, while a higher contribution rate of 10 per cent would not be feasible at this stage.

Those that did not support Council seeking a voluntary affordable housing contribution argued it would have a negative impact on the housing industry, because of how the affordable housing contribution was defined and would be administered.

It is possible that a minimum trigger of 16 units for an affordable housing contribution could result in a decision by developers to undertake developments of 15 units or less to avoid an affordable housing contribution. However, it is also likely that the developer would not agree to make a contribution and proceed with their original scale of development. The number of dwellings that can be achieved on a site is also strongly influenced by site constraints, zoning controls and planning regulations.

Administering an affordable housing contribution

Developers at the stakeholder workshop held in 2022 were generally supportive of a 6 per cent affordable housing contribution. They did however express a need for clear guidelines around what percentage contribution should be provided, how it should be provided and to whom the contribution should be provided (e.g. Council or a third party).

Developers who then read the Draft Policy and responded to the online survey raised concerns about how the affordable housing contribution would be administered. Specifically, that it would be interpreted as a requirement that 6 per cent of dwellings or an equivalent market value of 6 per cent of dwellings is gifted as an affordable housing contribution to a registered housing agency.

Council considers registered housing agencies best placed to manage the long-term maintenance of affordable housing given their specialised knowledge in affordable housing management, tenant selection, and compliance with regulations. Council also acknowledges that developers should also be permitted to manage the affordable housing dwellings themselves.

The revised Policy has been updated to reflect this change, stating that the affordable housing contribution value should be equivalent to the market discount required to provide a dwelling that complies with the Affordable Housing income ranges as defined in the Victorian Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Affordable housing contributions can now be provided directly to eligible households that meet the income thresholds, or transferred directly to a Registered Housing Agency experienced in the management of affordable housing, for the development of affordable housing in the City of Whitehorse or the eastern metropolitan region. This can be as a monetary contribution or affordable housing units on site that will be dedicated to a registered housing agency.

This means developers have the option of retaining ownership of the dwellings under a build to rent model but also allows for the transfer of ownership to a registered housing agency.

Development settings

The Draft Policy stated that Council will encourage an affordable housing contribution from residential developers in defined development settings or where there is an uplift in value that is created through changes in planning controls over specific sites or precincts.

To strengthen the Draft Policy, these defined development settings are now listed in the revised Policy:

- Residential development in the Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre

- Residential development on Strategic Development Sites

- Rezoning of land to the Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone (sites 0.5ha or greater), Neighbourhood Residential Zone (sites 0.5ha or greater), Mixed Use Zone, Commercial 1 Zone, Commercial 3 Zone (where residential development is provided for), Activity Centre Zone (where residential development is provided for), Special Use Zone (where residential development is provided for), and Comprehensive Development Zone (where residential development is provided for)

- Residential development within the future sale or redevelopment of land owned by government

- Land within 800m of future Suburban Rail Loop Project stations

The development settings were identified by UrbanXchange in collaboration with the City Planning and Development Department, based on opportunities to realise affordable housing outcomes in situations where additional land value is to be created via changes in planning controls (e.g. rezonings or increases in building heights) or on very large development sites.

Planning incentives

Community feedback noted the Draft Policy does not contain planning incentives to encourage developers to be more innovative in delivering affordable housing solutions or to go beyond the minimum requirement.

Council explored the use of planning incentives that encourage voluntary affordable housing contributions in the first round of consultation prior to the development of the Draft Policy. General community were not supportive of additional building heights/floor space, reduced building setback requirements and reduced car-parking requirements. There was however general support from developers and the community for the use of ‘approval process advantages’.

Council has responded to community feedback about the need for planning incentives to encourage voluntary affordable housing agreements by outlining two streamlined approvals processes that Council will consider, specifically:

- Providing fast-tracked applications processes within set timeframes.

- Ensuring applications are processed by experienced senior staff.

To be eligible for fast-tracking, applications would need to meet a set of prerequisites to be established by Council’s Planning Department. A similar model has been implemented at Merri-bek City Council with streamlined approvals processes for developments that satisfy its Design Excellence Scorecard. Once established, this will reduce the amount of Council resources required to assist developers in meeting the required standard for planning applications with an affordable housing component.

Conversion of vacant properties into affordable housing

A small number of respondents commented that Council should be doing more to prevent properties from becoming vacant and that these vacant properties could be converted into affordable housing to offset the affordable housing supply issue.

From a local government perspective, the most effective policy lever to reduce residential accommodation vacancies is advocacy to the State Government. The Victorian Government’s Vacant Residential Property Tax (VRLT) was introduced in 2018 to deter vacancies in selected inner Melbourne suburbs (including Whitehorse). The tax relies on voluntary self-reporting and when the number of declared vacancies is compared against water usage data, it suggests there are significant issues with compliance.

To improve compliance, the Draft Policy states that Council will advocate for a review of the Victorian Government’s Vacant Residential Property Tax to encourage greater conversion of vacant private accommodation into affordable housing rentals, given there is a high percentage of vacant residential accommodation in Whitehorse, particularly around the Box Hill area.

SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS

Legislative and Risk Implications

A number of respondents commented that the affordable housing contribution should be mandatory, not voluntary. The current Victorian planning framework does not provide a planning mechanism that would enable councils to require developers to provide affordable housing, which is referred to as mandatory inclusionary zoning.

While it is not possible to require developers to provide affordable housing, policy statements contained in the revised Policy are aligned to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which allows Council to encourage developers to enter into a voluntary agreement to provide affordable housing via a section 173 agreement.

The Whitehorse Affordable Housing Policy 2023 will provide greater certainty and clarity for councils and landowners entering into agreements about Council’s expectation regarding affordable housing.

There are no legal implications arising from the recommendation to adopt the Draft Policy.

Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Access to housing that is safe and secure is a fundamental human right. It is the foundation that enables each and every person to live well and access other basic rights that we are all equally entitled. Adequate housing is recognised as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

A gender impact assessment was also undertaken on the Draft Policy and presented to Council last year. The assessment found that gendered experiences of economic insecurity, such as the gendered pay, wealth and superannuation gaps make access to affordable housing particularly difficult for women. Gendered experiences of violence also affect women’s housing security and stability.

The assessment recommended not to set prescriptive targets (e.g. 10% of all new affordable housing should be allocated for women’s housing), which could create additional barriers that would detract from developers entering into a voluntary agreement. It was considered more practical for Council to acknowledge the specific needs of women, men, gender diverse people, disabled people, older persons, young people, and people from non-English speaking backgrounds in the policy preamble, which conveys a strong message to registered housing agencies, landowners, developers, service providers and other key stakeholders about Council’s priorities when negotiating voluntary affordable housing agreements.

Community Engagement

Two rounds of community engagement have informed the revised Policy. One conducted last year involving a targeted workshop with key stakeholders including developers, representatives from the community housing and homelessness support sector and local government sector, as well as a community survey published on Your Say Whitehorse targeted at the broader community (with 117 responses).

A second round of consultation involved a Draft Policy being placed on exhibition on Your Say Whitehorse from 30 December 2022 to 3 February 2023, along with an online survey that sought feedback on whether the Draft Policy is appropriate, fair and will contribute to improved affordable housing without negatively impacting the housing industry. In total 55 responses were received and there was a reasonable distribution of age, gender and geographical location among respondents.

Financial and Resource Implications

There were no additional costs associated with undertaking a review of the Affordable Housing Policy and no financial implications arising from adoption of the policy.

Affordable housing contributions will directly benefit tenants via a market discounted lease agreement, while any cash contributions towards the creation of affordable housing dwellings would be directed to a Registered Housing Agency experienced in the management of affordable housing, for the development of affordable housing in the City of Whitehorse or the eastern metropolitan region.

Revenue generated from affordable housing contributions would depend on a range of factors, including the size and type of development, and the location of the development. While it is difficult to forecast the total amount of monetary contributions, each contribution will help to address the shortage of affordable housing by increasing the supply of affordable homes and providing opportunities for very low to moderate income households to access housing that they would not otherwise be able to afford.

Once implemented, Council will be able to measure the success of the revised Policy through tracking the number of affordable housing units developed as a result of voluntary contributions, as well as via the revenue generated from affordable housing contributions and provided to registered housing agencies. This will require the establishment of new reporting mechanisms to ensure the information is being accurately captured.

Other options to measure the success of the Policy include the percentage of income spent on housing by residents, reduced homelessness and monitoring of housing market trends, such as changes in rental and property prices.

Innovation and Continuous Improvement

Whitehorse’s Affordable Housing Policy includes an action to encourage an affordable housing contribution from residential developers. This should reduce the amount of time and resources required to negotiate affordable housing outcomes by providing greater certainty to developers about what is expected. The revised Policy enables developers to provide an affordable housing contribution via a number of methods, including directly to eligible households via a lease agreement or to a registered housing agency as either affordable housing units on site or as a monetary contribution.

Collaboration

A project working group was established as part of the policy review process. The group consisted of members from Community Engagement & Development (who are responsible for the affordable housing portfolio), Statutory Planning (who are directly involved in voluntary affordable housing negotiations with developers) and Strategic Planning (who is responsible for developing and implementing long-term plans and strategies that aim to ensure the availability of suitable housing options for residents within the community).

Conflict of Interest

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Conclusion

Councils have a legal obligation to facilitate the provision of affordable housing under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Whitehorse Affordable Housing Policy provides a Council position to guide and facilitate the provision of affordable housing on public and private land through appropriate and effective advocacy, facilitation and planning.

The Policy has been informed by community engagement with key stakeholders, feedback from the broad community, as well as an affordable housing local planning policy report that was also peer reviewed.

By encouraging an affordable housing contribution from residential developers in defined development settings or where there is an uplift in value that is created through changes in planning controls over specific sites or precincts, it will significantly reduce the amount of time and resources required to negotiate affordable housing outcomes and provide greater certainty about what is expected.

Attachment

1 Affordable Housing Policy 2023

2 Affordable Housing Policy Community Engagement Report May 2023

[1] Prahran Orrong Park Developments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 1021 (at 47- 52):

[2] The Panel referred to the ‘inclusion’ of the site within the HO23. Council officers note that the site is already within the HO23, and it is proposed to ‘retain’ the site within the HO23. Amendment C230 simply updates the Heritage Statement of Significance and the schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

[3] Noting that the site excludes a small area of land fronting Burwood Highway where the substation for the tram line is located.

Informal Councillor Briefing – 22 June 2023 –5.30pm – 6.30pm
Matter/s Discussed: Update on the ‘Visioning the Box Hill Urban Realm’ project that integrates with the Suburban Rail Loop East project.	Councillors Present	Officers Present
	Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair)	J Green
	Cr Barker	I Kostopoulos
	Cr Carr	A DaCampo
	Cr Liu	C MacNaughtan
	Cr McNeill	L Morris
	Cr Skilbeck	L McGuinness
Others Present: A Partos, Hansen Partnership
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest: Nil
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure N/A

Pre-Council Meeting Briefing 26 June 2023 – 6.30pm – 6.37pm
Matter/s Discussed: · Public Presentations · Public Questions · Petition · Notice of Motion · Council Agenda Items 26 June 2023	Councillors Present	Officers Present
	Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair)	S McMillan
	Cr Cutts (Deputy Mayor)	S Cann
	Cr Barker	J Green
	Cr Carr	L Letic
	Cr Liu	S White
	Cr Massoud	V Ferlaino
	Cr McNeill	K Woods
	Cr Munroe	C Bolitho
	Cr Skilbeck
	Cr Stennett
Others Present N/A
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest None Disclosed
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure N/A

Councillor Briefing 3 July 2023 – 6.30pm-8.56pm
Matter/s Discussed: 1. Fair Access Policy Roadmap 2. Suburban Rail Loop – options for new open space in Box Hill 3. Draft Council Meeting Agenda – 10 July 2023	Councillors Present	Officers Present
	Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair)	S McMillan
	Cr Cutts (Deputy Mayor)	J Green
	Cr Barker	L Letic
	Cr Carr	S Sullivan
	Cr Massoud	C Altan
	Cr Liu	V Ferlaino
	Cr McNeill	T Jenvey
	Cr Munroe	I Kostopoulos
	Cr Skilbeck	T Peak
		K Chandler
		A DaCampo (online)
		L McGuinness
		L Morris (online)
		N Hirst
		K Woods
Others Present: Item 2: L van Camp, A Kelly, E Dale (Suburban Rail Loop Authority)
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest:
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure: N/A

Delegated Committee	Delegate
	Lane	Cutts	Barker	Carr	Davenport	Liu	Massoud	McNeill	Munroe	Skilbeck	Stennett
Municipal Association of Victoria	1/2								2/2
Whitehorse Business Group							6/6		3/6
Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corp.					2/4*					4/4
Eastern Affordable Housing Alliance							2/5
Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee			2/2
Eastern Region Group of Councils	4/4	4/4
Eastern Transport Coalition						3/5
Metropolitan Transport Forum								4/5
Audit and Risk Committee			2/2							2/2
Visual Arts Advisory Committee				2/2							1/2
Whitehorse Disability Advisory Committee							2/3	2/3
Whitehorse Reconciliation Advisory Committee							2/2
Domestic Animal Management Plan Advisory Committee			1/1	1/1
Environment and Sustainability Reference Group		3/3					3/3
Local Government Working Group on Gambling			1/2				2/2
Whitehorse Sports and Recreation Network		1/1									1/1