Frankston Housing Strategy (amended by Amendment C95)

All matters concerning Residential Development (i.e. Zoning, Permits, Height Regulations, etc.)
Forum rules
Play Nice ... Absolutely no swearing, abuse or unsavoury behaviour will be tolerated. Members of the public can view posts, but must register to make posts.

Frankston Housing Strategy (amended by Amendment C95)

Postby Noel Tudball » Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:43 am


“There is more involved than simply choosing a station on a map and saying that's where we should develop!“

UPDATE:
FCC has released Amendment C95 which revises the first Draft Housing Strategy,


Submissions on this latest revision closed on Friday 13 December 2013.

The first version plans below have been superseded.
See the revised plans here :arrow: http://www.seafordcc.org/SCC/forum/view ... p?f=4&t=51



================================================================================


SUMMARY:
By 2033 "the population of Frankston City is expected to grow by between 27,000 and 40,000 and require 11,000 to 17,000 new dwellings to house that growth."

The Victorian State Government has introduced new residential zones that Councils can adopt or adapt.
The main focus is higher density, taller buildings around transport hubs, e.g. railway stations and shopping centres, particularly in the Northern areas of Frankston.

You should be concerned about:
  • flooding
  • bushfires
  • traffic congestion, particularly for emergency services
  • neighbourhood character
As you’d expect, we’ve concentrated on the Seaford area, but all Frankston City residents are affected.
The (bluey) green areas on the map below are earmarked for “substantial growth”.

Feel free to share this info with anyone who lives in the Frankston City Council area.
The link is http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19

You only need to read this first screen, then spend a few minutes sending an email, but there's more information below if you want it.

It is important that as many people as possible provide feedback. It doesn’t need to be long or detailed - ANY objection gets counted as an objection and gives Council pause for thought.

To save your time, you can use any or all of our response (below).

Written feedback is due by 13 September 2013 by downloading the:
- Housing Strategy - Feedback form (PDF version) or
- Housing Strategy - Feedback form (Word version) and return it via:

Mail: PO Box 490 Frankston 3199

Email: housing@frankston.vic.gov.au

In person: any of FCC's Customer Service Locations

Feedback deadline extended to 13 September 2013.

Feedback from Council-run Ward meetings


________________________________________

More information:

Here’s a small version of the Frankston Housing Strategy Map plus a separate Key (click on image for a slightly larger view).
The (bluey) green areas are earmarked for “substantial growth”.
For more info, detailed maps of all affected areas, new Zone descriptions and definitions, docs and links, see links below.

Should we also say that the choice of “green” for the worst area and “red” for the best area (from a resident’s viewpoint) is just plain wrong? LOL

Housing_Strategy_Key.png
Housing_Strategy_Map_for_email.png


Here’s our response for your review and use if you like:

We recognize the apparent logic of increasing development near transport hubs. However, the Seaford Community Committee (SCC):

  1. Has concerns with the proposed rezoning around Seaford and Kananook stations where land is subject to high risk of both flooding and bushfire based on existing overlays.
  2. Recommends escalating from Medium to High, the need for a Melbourne Water assurity that increased housing density in and near these areas would not dramatically increase the risk of flooding.
  3. Advises that the proposed RGZ (Residential Growth Zone) is contrary to the Seaford Local Area Plan (LAP) and to the amenity of Seaford residents
    o Access in and out of a number of the proposed RGZ is also channelled via one or two minor roads, e.g. both Park and Mitchell Streets already service a large number of homes
    o Over-development would present traffic congestion and restrict the ability for emergency services to respond
  4. Recommends that from a legal point of view, Frankston Council may be better to play it safe and leave these two zones as neighbourhood residential zones. They contribute little in numbers to the overall scope of the plan and could constitute a serious liability if Council were to be held accountable for future disasters.
  5. Suggests that using different terminology in your draft e.g. Potential … rather than the actual proposed zones may result in negative feedback as it gives the impression of hiding your intent.
  6. Suggests that providing unclear maps and confusing, sometimes insufficient information, is extremely unhelpful.
  7. Are appreciative that FCC extended the feedback deadline to allow more considered opinion.
To have real effect, objections need to deal with concerns such as traffic, environment, drainage, etc. not just neighbourhood character.
However, as I said before, ANY objection gets counted as an objection.

Noel

==============================================

(Copied from)
Draft Frankston Housing Strategy
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/About_the_Council/Have_Your_Say_Community_Consultation/index.aspx


Frankston City Council recently completed a 'Draft Frankston Housing Strategy' focusing on likely population growth and housing demands through to 2031. During this time, the population of Frankston City is expected to grow by between 27,000 and 40,000 and require 11,000 to 17,000 new dwellings to house that growth.

The State Government has introduced new residential zones enabling Councils to identify areas where substantial, incremental and limited housing growth will be encouraged. The new zones are the Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The Housing Strategy identifies future housing needs in Frankston and ways to manage those needs. Recommendations include changes to the policy section of the Frankston Planning Scheme and also address where the new residential zones should be located.


(I recommend you open each link in a new browser Tab or Window.
When you are viewing the files in Google Docs, click on File, then Download.
Please advise of dud links - thank you, Noel)


Relevant Documentation:
New Residential Zones can be viewed via the links below. (Ed: You should view the information on these pages, then either download their files with fairly meaningless file names or download renamed files via links below - Noel):

Residential Growth Zone
General Growth Zone (General Residential Zone)
Neighbourhood Residential Zone
Low Density Residential Zone
Council is inviting you to submit your written feedback before 13 September 2013 by downloading the Housing Strategy - Feedback form (PDF version) or Housing Strategy - Feedback form (Word version) and returning it via one of the following pathways:

Mail: PO Box 490 Frankston 3199

Email: housing@frankston.vic.gov.au

In person: any of Customer Service Locations

Housing Strategy Community Forums
Once feedback has been reviewed, Council will decide whether to make changes to the Housing Strategy and decide where to apply the new residential zones. Council will endeavour to update respondents on the progress of their submission.

For further information on any of the above topics please contact Council's Strategic Planning Unit on 1300 322 322.

Noel,
Chairman
SeafordCC@gmail.com

Facebook - click on the link in the top right-hand corner of this screen.

The Seaford Community Committee (SCC) aims to improve communication and create a stronger community in Seaford.

Image
SCC website



User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm







Re: Frankston Housing Strategy, version 1 (superseded)

Postby Noel Tudball » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:17 am

Media Release
For Immediate Release
06 August 2013


Housing Strategy consultation extended

Council has resolved to extend the public consultation period on the draft Frankston Housing Strategy until September 13.

At Monday night’s Planning Meeting (PM015, August 5 2013), Councillors also resolved to hold three ward meetings later this month to inform the community in person about the strategy which focuses on likely population growth and housing demands through to 2031.

The draft strategy identifies future housing needs in Frankston City and makes recommendations on ways to address and manage these needs.

The Ward meetings are being held:

North West Ward - Thursday 29 August 2013, 7:30pm, Ebdale Community Hub and Learning Centre: 20 Ebdale St Frankston, 3199.

North East Ward - Tuesday 27 August, 2013, 6:00pm, Lyrebird Community Centre, Lyrebird Drive, Carrum Downs.

South Ward - Thursday 29 August 2013, 6:00pm, Frankston South Recreation Centre, 55 Towerhill Road, Frankston South.


Anyone wishing to view the strategy, provide feedback or complete a survey on planning matters in Frankston City can visit Council’s Customer Service Centres or online at: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/About_t ... index.aspx.

Residents can also comment in the same way on the Draft Frankston Activities Area Structure plan until August 26 and the Municipal Strategic Statement until August 31.

The Municipal Strategic Statement is a legislative requirement which both the finalised Housing Strategy and the Frankston Activities Area Structure plan will feed into.


ENDS

CONTACT:
Lisa Grundy
Phone: 9768 1367
Email: lisa.grundy@frankston.vic.gov.au

Paul Kennedy
Phone: 9784 1812
Email: paul.kennedy@frankston.vic.gov.au
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Frankston Housing Strategy, version 1 (superseded)

Postby Noel Tudball » Wed Sep 04, 2013 4:40 pm

Simon (SCC member) emailed ......

Feedback from Council-run Ward meetings:

At the South Frankston community consultation meeting one councillor mentioned that he aims to turn their orange area all red.
At the Northern meeting (ebdale) both councillors mentioned that they support the idea of stopping the green zone (highest development intensity) from the area around Seaford shops.

Many people in our area spoke to issues like not supporting intensive development right next to the only internationally recognised area in the region (Seaford Wetlands) & the madness of putting intensive development in a low lying area. Also issues of congestion & the character of Seaford were raised. Basically all at the meeting objected to the type of intensive development which is proposed around Seaford Village & lots of comments were made about the blue zones covering most of the other Seaford areas (which allow change as listed).

I asked a question prefaced by making a statement along the following lines;
It appears that the areas in red (highest protection / lowest development) are all in the Southern area while the key green areas areas earmarked for most intense development are all to the North & surrounded by blue areas of development potential. It seems curious that this allocation of Southern red & orange area correlates with areas of highest percentage over $100,000 income, as stated in the housing plan analysis. It is curious that while the plan also aims to spread affordable & low income housing across the region it seems that the development plan completely ignores this. I also said that it seems rather contrary to statements made regarding addressing climate change (by the planner & documents presented) that Seaford central in particular is earmarked for the most intensive development, with much of its area being little more than 1 metre above sea level while the higher land with little climate threat & of great opportunity for good views on stable land has apparently been left out of plans for increased density. I asked why this is the case.

The response was a brief planner’s statement saying that ‘those areas’ of the South have existing minimum lot sizes, (or something like that). I’m sure you can imagine my thoughts regarding the simple dismissal of change to the South relative simply changing standards for the North in the plan. I will leave you to speak to that in your own submissions.

Both councillors present at the Northern meeting seemed to want to push for a better deal for Seaford & gave the impression that they do actually support what the community might wish for. We were urged by them both in the strongest terms to JUST DO IT. (i.e. submit feedback)

The maximum number of local residents MUST make a written submission however brief stating why they might oppose any or all of the plan so that numbers are significant. Our local councillors want to stand up for us & will do so but they need a groundswell of numbers. We must call out to all locals through all of our groups to submit simple email or postal responses by the due date so that they can advocate for us. The matter will be heard at council on the usual public council meeting in Frankston on the Tuesday after submissions close. It would be an interesting meeting for any concerned to attend.

On a separate note, I have bumped into two people today (one from North & one from South Frankston) since the meeting who both expressed discomfort with the plan.

One other curious fact is that apparently approximately 13,000 additional residences could apparently be accommodated in the existing council planning framework & the state government is apparently asking for between 11,000-17,000 new residences demonstrated in the new plan, which appears to beg the question of why indeed we are skewing planning to further intensify the Northern region relative to the south at all. Who gains from this ?… (must check facts) But the point is that if this is true it appears that what the proposed plan aims for is a further shift of current development rights over the whole Frankston shire to shift to growth being squished into the Northern regions (including out East at Karingal).

The meeting statement by one Southern area councillor at the Southern area consultation advocating for all of the South Frankston orange section (minimal change) to also be changed to red (protection area) in his preferred further amendment suggests an even more extreme skew of relative density is likely.

The other worrying trend is that the South Frankston session was packed out with around 70-100 people, the Northern area was attended by around 40 or 50, I hear that last weeks session at Carrum Downs had 6 people. If this is the case we know that mobilisation of well connected Southerners will likely ensure a majority hearing & the usual & continued skew of planning in their favour.

I urge anyone who cares about where they live to look at the plan. Even a few words are enough to make the case. Just say what you feel & why. Nothing too technical required.

The planner was really helpful & will consider feedback. They want this, so please oblige.

Thanks, Simon
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Draft Frankston Housing Strategy

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:46 am


Our feedback (see above) was submitted before the 13th September closing date.

A report on the public meetings indicates that most residents opposed:
  • the plans & requested more time and much clearer information
  • the concentration of the “Go-Go” Zone in the Northern parts of Frankston and scarcity of same in the South
Update from FCC:
  • 250 people attended the public sessions
  • 100 submissions were made – mostly from Seaford
  • The plans are currently being revised, with the Northern areas receiving the most revision
  • An update will be provided at our October meeting
We'll provide more info as it becomes available.
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Draft Frankston Housing Strategy

Postby Noel Tudball » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:32 pm


If you submitted feedback, you'll have received this letter in response -
Notice of resolution Housing Strategy.pdf
(99.49 KiB) Downloaded 641 times

I'll post the "translation" when I get it / work it out.
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Draft Frankston Housing Strategy

Postby Noel Tudball » Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:20 pm


Recent letter/email and revised resolution received from FCC:

"
I am writing to inform you that our letter of 1 October 2013 contained an error at Item 4(h) of the Council resolution, which should have read “400 square metres”. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused. The correct resolution from the 16 September 2013 Council meeting is set out in the attached letter."

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Draft Frankston Housing Strategy

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:51 pm


“There is more involved than simply choosing a station on a map and saying that's where we should develop!“

UPDATE:
FCC has released Amendment C95 which revises the first Draft Housing Strategy.


Submissions on this latest revision must be received by FCC by Friday 13 December 2013.

The first version plans above have been superseded.
See the revised plans here :arrow: http://www.seafordcc.org/SCC/forum/view ... p?f=4&t=51



User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm




Return to Residential Development Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests