New Residential Zones - 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.

New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:20 pm

(Renamed from "Frankston Housing Strategy - Amendment C95")


“There is more involved than simply choosing a station on Google Maps, drawing a circle around it and saying that's where we should develop!“

Nepean Hwy 3 storey devt.jpg
Nepean Hwy 3 storey devt.jpg (65.75 KiB) Viewed 168473 times
Wrongly named - it is actually a 4 storey devt approved for 302-308 Nepean Hwy, beachside, near Mile Bridge - Planning Permit Application number 501/2012/P for construction of a four (4) storey building comprising a semi-basement, 18 dwellings, café and associated reduction of loading / unloading bay requirements, reduction of car spaces for the café use and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 at 302-308 Nepean Highway, Frankston, subject to the conditions outlined in the Officer's report dated 18 November 2013.

If you only have a few minutes:
  • Read the Executive Summary a little below
  • View the recently-added updates below the Executive Summary, and
  • SEE THE LATEST INFO AT THE END OF THIS TOPIC (on last page)
Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) is what we want for most of Seaford - to protect against flooding and Coastal Acid Sulphate Soil (CASS) risk, accommodate existing and new Overlays, retain our neighbourhood character and address the other issues listed below.

But there's a lot more to it than that - "Neighbourhood" doesn't necessarily mean "the neighbourhood we currently have" - not by a long shot.


Amendment C95 amends (but does not replace) Council's June, 2013 "Draft Housing Strategy". Those old plans, info and issues are here :arrow: http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19 and will presumably be addressed at some point in the future.

Submissions on Amendment C95 closed on Friday 13 December 2013. We hope you voiced your opinion in a submission.
Submission info is here :arrow: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51&sid=8bd9dc3476ade0ba4eddd183a798e7f1#p92.

================================================================================
Disclaimer:
All of the information I have provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
If you find errors, have more information, questions or better ideas, please let me know.
Thank you.
================================================================================

Background:
"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 focus is on higher density, taller buildings around transport hubs, e.g. railway stations and shopping centres, particularly in the Northern areas of Frankston.

  1. FCC must adopt the State Govt's Housing Strategy Zones (and they have)
  2. However, where the Zones are applied within that strategy is a local issue and (virtually) entirely under FCC's control
** The SCC maintains that adequate Growth Zones can be placed sensibly along SmartBus routes and major roads, rather than restricting them to railway stations and shopping centres, which are not necessarily appropriate. **

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

Executive Summary:
  • The State Govt and (as a consequence) FCC are revising Housing Zones - all governments want to stop "urban sprawl", but still cater for the expected huge growth in population
  • The State Govt has gazetted 3 Zones:
    * NRZ (Neighbourhood Residential Zone - 2-3 storeys)
    * GRZ (General Residential Zone - 3 storeys) and
    * RGZ (Residential Growth Zone - 5 storeys)
  • It has been said that NRZ could deprive owners of the ability to capitalize on the value of their primary financial asset as they move towards retirement
  • These restrictions will be counteracted by more generous development allowances in the two other residential zones, the General Residential Zone (GRZ), which will allow developments of up to three storeys, and the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) which allows developments of up to five storeys
  • Councils have until 1 July 2014 to introduce the new residential zones into their local planning schemes. Where councils have not finalised an amendment to implement the new residential zones by 1 July 2014, the General Residential Zone will be implemented to replace all land zoned Residential 1, 2 and 3
  • FCC issued their Draft Housing Strategy in October, 2013
  • FCC received resident feedback and issued Amendment C95 in November, 2013
  • Amendment C95 appears to be a little better for Seaford than the original Housing Strategy (which is only amended and not replaced by C95) and many believe that more needs to be done:
    - the Growth Zones have been removed and - wait for it - POSTPONED to a date yet to be fixed - and with a process yet to be announced
    - many areas have been allocated the wrong Zones
    - Kananook Creek and the Wetlands have been given a little more protection
    - conditions applied by Overlays (addressing flood, inundation, bushfire, wildfire, heritage, environmental or landscape significance) have not been given adequate consideration
    - many instances of "None Specified" have been replaced with actual figures - some good, some not - see below
  • The status quo will change
  • The current Residential Zones will be replaced with the 3 new Zones
  • There is a real possibility of high-rise, high-density development in local streets and other sensitive areas (if the land became available)
  • Many areas have a height limit of 9 metres with 10m on a slope which could be 3 storeys
  • No-one is suggesting that anyone is intent on ruining our neighbourhoods
  • However, if you care about your area, you need to share your views to guide the planners
  • Your views (via submission) were being accepted until 13th December, 2013 - submission details are here :arrow: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51&sid=8bd9dc3476ade0ba4eddd183a798e7f1#p92
  • There are more examples and information below
  • March 2014 - C95 State Govt Planning Panel convened by FCC
  • June 2014 - State Govt Planning Panel rejects FCC's C95 amendment
  • July 2014 - Meeting between residents, Councillors and Planning Officers re C95
  • Since FCC did not submit a plan (implementing the new Residential Zones into their local planning scheme) that the State Govt would approve, the General Residential Zone has been implemented to replace all land zoned Residential 1, 2 and 3, with effect from on 1 July 2014. The General Residential Zone (GRZ) allows 3 storeys, subject to DDO's, Overlays and commonsense
  • The SCC believes that Growth Zones can be placed sensibly along SmartBus and other bus routes. The SCC would also support more responsible development in the Central Activities District, Ebdale Precinct, Hastings Rd, Cranbourne Rd and Frankston-Dandenong Rd. Properly planned and located, those precincts should provide more than sufficient development opportunities to satisfy strategic targets.
================================================================================

You may find this link explains things better than I have ......
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/reform-locks-up-our-suburbs-20140614-3a4l4.html

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

UPDATE - November 11 2014, after the 10th November (OM263) 2014 Council meeting:
A good outcome re C95 – it has been deferred pending further research and planning.
In fact, a Motion to defer it had been tabled before the meeting (but after release of the public agenda). Since we couldn’t be sure how Councillors would vote, many residents (including me) spoke anyway – I just had to change my content and emphasis. We will again offer to work with FCC to reach the best possible outcome.


UPDATE - November 8 2014, after release of 10th November (OM263) 2014 Agenda:
  • The Environmental Risks image shows the areas at risk identified by FCC in 2012
  • The Map 6 - Modified C95 Amendment image shows that the areas at risk are ignored in the most recent C95 proposal (in Nov 2014)
  • The Original Housing Strategy Map - FCC's original aim image shows the areas at risk were not only ignored by FCC in 2013, but are earmarked (in aqua) for Growth Zones (at some point in the future)
Risks, Nov 2014 C95 & Housing Strat.jpg
Risks, Nov 2014 C95 & Housing Strat.jpg (131.91 KiB) Viewed 171412 times
Click on image to see the full image
Environmental Risk - Frankston Planning Scheme - 2012 - 21.05.jpg
Environmental Risk - Frankston Planning Scheme - 2012 - 21.05.jpg (157.97 KiB) Viewed 171514 times
Click on image to see the full image
Source
Modified C95 Nov 2014 - Map 6, P202, OM263 agenda.jpg
Modified C95 Nov 2014 - Map 6, P202, OM263 agenda.jpg (140.09 KiB) Viewed 171419 times
Click on image to see the full image
Original_Housing_Strategy_Map_for_email.png
Original_Housing_Strategy_Map_for_email.png (561.37 KiB) Viewed 171412 times
Click on image to see the full image - note that the Zone descriptions have changed and the colours are reversed in this original Housing Strategy map


UPDATE - October 2014:

UPDATE - July 2014:
  • Since FCC did not submit a plan (implementing the new Residential Zones into their local planning scheme) that the State Govt would approve, the General Residential Zone has been implemented to replace all land zoned Residential 1, 2 and 3, with effect from on 1 July 2014. The General Residential Zone (GRZ) allows 3 storeys, subject to DDO's, Overlays and commonsense

Examples of the complexity of this planning process:
  • FCC Councillors insisted on a 100m "low density development buffer zone" around the wetlands - that's good
  • this has become Neighbourhood Residential Zone - NRZ 6 - Seaford wetlands environs - OK
  • there is no height restriction contained in the Zone description - what?
  • one must refer to the relevant overlay for that (oh no) ........ and it is 8m
  • if you can work out why it must be designed that way, please let me know

===========

The State Govt has gazetted 3 Zones: NRZ, GRZ and RGZ (see descriptions below).
FCC has subsets of each based on local characteristics, e.g.
- GRZ2, GRZ3
- NRZ6, NRZ7, NRZ10
That's a total of 24 Zones + (I forget) how many overlays - see Executive Summary at the top).

===========

"None Specified"
There are many instances of "none specified" in the Schedule documents. In most cases, the defaults from either Provision 54 (one dwelling) or Provision 55 (multiple dwellings) will apply in those cases e.g.
  • Default height is 9 metres (up to 10 on a slope) or 3 storeys
  • Default coverage 60% max (the %'age of land that may be built on)
  • Default permeable land 20% min (the %'age of land that must allow water to penetrate - not concrete driveways!)
  • Default street setback between 4 - 9 metres based on set criteria
  • Default side setback (one side only) 2 metres min
  • Single height porch, pergola or eaves may encroach up to 2.5 metres into setup
Provisions:
Provision 54_03 - single dwelling.pdf (35KB)
Provision 55_03 - multiple dwellings.pdf (42KB)

Source:
http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/frankston


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



Miscellaneous Information:
The "artist's impression" of the building used on posters is of a development recently approved for 302-308 Nepean Highway, near the Mile Bridge.
Whilst many might consider it is OK in that location, it would be inappropriate in a suburban street.

I understand that there are transitional rules currently in place to try to stop developers from "jumping the gun".


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


The “Amendment C95 - Information Brochure” is clear and informative – read this first - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_RO8yB1fC2aDVrUTM1WE5qTU0 (use mouse right-click to open in new Tab/window)

That same info is also in the November Frankston City News (paper version delivered to households) or online here :arrow: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/files/49d39bf1-7e8c-40b7-9594-a26f00ddfb85/FCN_November_2013.pdf Page 4 (7MB) (use mouse right-click to open in new Tab/window)


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


Well done, Seaford residents ………
We submitted the most feedback to FCC regarding their initial October, 2013 plans ("version 1") and as a result, the revised plans (under Amendment C95) are better for Seaford - but still not good enough - they do not address all ecologically-sensitive areas.

As you’d expect, we’ve concentrated on the Seaford area, but all Frankston City residents are affected.
Karingal and Frankston North residents are also understandably upset at the Zones planned for their areas.
The Zones planned for Frankston South and most other areas of Frankston seem fine - lucky them.


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


Things have become clearer with the latest information from FCC. The initial information stating that the strategy had been adopted was very unclear and needlessly confusing. It has now come to light that Councillors adopted the strategy and the zones, but not the initial map. (Compare the old and new maps.) FCC has now also adopted the much clearer State Govt Zones, rather than their own Zone names.

Current Seaford map, showing proposed Zones :arrow: Frankston C95 001znMap01 Exhibition (438KB)

Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) - 2-3 storeys
"Restricts housing growth and protects an identified neighbourhood character." (This is believed to be what we want for all of Seaford.)
Height = 8m (9m if on a slope) ... and 9m could be 3 storeys.

General Residential Zone (GRZ) - 3 storeys
"Respects and preserves neighbourhood character while allowing modest housing growth and diversity."
Height = ??? - "The maximum height can be specified by Council through a schedule to the zone" - currently proposed for most of Seaford

Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) - 5 storeys
"Enables new housing growth and allows greater diversity in appropriate locations."
Height = 13.5m


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


Some items you might consider including in your submission:
  • For you to say: "I like my area as it is" is not enough
  • To make your views count, you need to give reasons for your statements (there are plenty of examples below)
  • You don't need to ask for a particular zone or wade through their detail
  • You can tell FCC what you want in plain English (e.g. garage sizes - see next bullet point, max. construction height of 8m, max. height of 2 storeys, max. of 2 dwellings per block, there should only be 1 storey near the Kananook Creek or the Wetlands, name some streets the planners should visit to see they are already overdeveloped, when will drainage and other infrastructure be upgraded? etc)
  • Garages that can accommodate a large 4WD (rather than a micro-sized car or a lawn mower and a few tools) should be a requirement of new developments to help keep streets free of parked cars
  • Since many people will still use any-sized garage for storage, it could also be argued that more off-street parking on private properties is required, especially if pavers are used for driveways instead of concrete, creating more permeable soil, thus reducing flood risks
  • You can ask for the same deal that has been approved for Glen Eira Council - http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51#p104
  • Where a development is a combination of single storey and 2 storey buildings, unless an applicant can justify otherwise, all 2 storey buildings are to be confined to the rear of the building block to maintain existing streetscape and integrity of the neighbourhood character
  • Utilities and infrastructure (such as drainage) do not appear to be being upgraded to keep up with this proposed increase in people and buildings
  • Stormwater drains should be improved to cater for the increased number of properties
  • Whenever there is construction in the street, rain washes rubbish into and blocks stormwater drains, which should be inspected before, during and after construction
  • Has the one-in-a-hundred years flood overlay been taken into account?
  • Name some streets the planners should visit to see they are already overdeveloped
  • There should be a maximum height of 8m
  • There should be a maximum of 2 storeys
  • There should be a maximum of 2 dwellings per block, regardless of the block size
  • There should only be 1 storey near the Kananook Creek or the Wetlands
  • When will drainage and other infrastructure be upgraded?
  • “Site coverage” and “Permeability” specifications are covered in the “New schedules” documents:
    - permeability (the amount of ground not under building or paving) is specified and policed at time of permit application, but not policed thereafter
    - the site area covered by buildings should not exceed 40 or 50 per cent
    - the site area covered by pervious surfaces should be at least 30 or 40 per cent of the site
    - these don't appear to followed even now - there seem to be many recent buildings that don’t meet these specs
  • Amendment C95 - Explanatory report - Page 2 – “The amendment does not impact on bushfire risk.” Increased numbers of vehicles parked in streets will however, restrict emergency services response, let alone weekly rubbish collections
You should also be concerned about:
  • flooding
  • bushfires
  • traffic congestion, particularly for emergency services (caused by increasing numbers of vehicles parking in narrow streets - the new garages just don't appear to be large enough)
  • neighbourhood character

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


Submissions about the amendment must be received by Friday 13 December 2013.
A submission must be sent to:
Strategic Planning Unit – Amendment C95
Frankston City Council
PO Box 490
FRANKSTON VIC 3199
Or email your submission to:
correspondence@frankston.vic.gov.au
(Please include ‘Amendment C95’ in the subject line)


You can also share your views directly with our Councillors :arrow: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Co ... ouncillors


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


Planning Scheme Amendment (C95) Ward Meetings (all have been held)

North-West Ward Tue 26 November 2013
Report:
  • the presenters seemed to be unfamiliar with our Ward – it appeared they gave the same presentation to the other ward meetings
  • several questions were left unanswered, e.g. is the boundary from the Kananook Creek measured from the edge or centre of the creek?
  • Council Officers were unable to verify that drainage and other infrastructure is being / will be upgraded
  • height and flood overlays were glossed over
  • permeability (the amount of ground not under building or paving) is specified and policed at the time of permit approval, but not policed thereafter
  • many people left without understanding the process
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Things_To_Do/Events/Whats_On/Planning_Scheme_Amendment_C95_Ward_Meeting_North-West_Ward



North-East Ward Thu 21 November 2013
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Things_To_Do/Events/Whats_On/Planning_Scheme_Amendment_C95_Ward_Meeting_North-East_Ward

South Ward Thu 28 November 2013
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Things_To_Do/Events/Whats_On/Planning_Scheme_Amendment_C95_South_Ward


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


Maps (showing proposed Zones) and Schedules (rules): (the devil's in the details)
(Once open in Google Drive, select File|Download and then press your browser's Back button.)

- Seaford map :arrow: Amendment C95 - Frankston C95 001znMap01 Exhibition - Seaford - map.pdf (438KB)
- Seaford wetlands GRZ 3 environs schedule :arrow: Amendment C95 - New schedules - GRZ 3 Seaford wetlands environs.pdf(16KB)
- Seaford wetlands NRZ 6 environs schedule :arrow: Amendment C95 - New schedules - NRZ 6 Seaford wetlands environs.pdf (18KB)
- Seaford Kananook Creek NRZ 7 environs schedule :arrow: Amendment C95 - New schedules - NRZ 7 Seaford Kananook Creek environs.pdf (17KB)
- Seaford Kananook Creek NRZ 10 environs west schedule :arrow: Amendment C95 - New schedules - NRZ 10 Seaford Kananook Creek environs west.pdf (18KB)
- Sandhurst map (for comparison) :arrow: Amendment C95 - Frankston C95 003znMap03 Exhibition - Sandhurst - map.pdf (304KB)
- Sandhurst Schedule (for comparison) :arrow: Amendment C95 - New schedules - NRZ 11 Sandhurst.pdf (15KB)

Source:
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Planning/Strategic_Planning/Amendments_-_Frankston_Planning_Scheme/Amendment_C95


There are more maps and schedules on the FCC website:
Planning Scheme Amendment C95 - New Residential Zones - maps and documents
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Planning/Strategic_Planning/Amendments_-_Frankston_Planning_Scheme/Amendment_C95
(It is recommended that you download the documents and maps from the above website page if you want to refer to them after they have been removed from the FCC website.)


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


Further reading:

Effects of the new Zones explained (well):
http://dlaaust.com/media/new-residentia ... ffect-you/

Moreland Council's approach:
http://www.morelandplanning.com/zones
http://moreland.vic.gov.au/about-counci ... m-you.html
(They are considering a maximum height of 2 storeys)

Frankston Planning Scheme Overlays:
http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/ ... /frankston
http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/vpps

Frankston residents face population explosion, says Kelvin Thomson
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/bayside/frankston-residents-face-population-explosion-says-kelvin-thomson/story-fngnvli9-1226747047033



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: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm







Re: Frankston Housing Strategy, version 2 - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:10 pm



Submissions about the amendment must be received by Friday 13 December 2013.
A submission must be sent to:
Strategic Planning Unit – Amendment C95
Frankston City Council
PO Box 490
FRANKSTON VIC 3199
Or email your submission to:
correspondence@frankston.vic.gov.au
(Please include ‘Amendment C95’ in the subject line)

You can also share your views directly with our Councillors :arrow: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Co ... ouncillors


User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Frankston Housing Strategy, version 2 - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:31 pm


Added to first post:
  • Executive Summary
  • Miscellaneous Information
  • More options for submissions
  • Examples of the complexity of the planning process
  • Report on North West Ward Residents meeting
  • Additions to Further Reading section
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: Frankston Housing Strategy, version 2 - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:39 pm



A new item has been added to the above list:
  • Where a development is a combination of single storey and 2 storey buildings, unless an applicant can justify otherwise, all 2 storey buildings are to be confined to the rear of the building block to maintain existing streetscape and integrity of the neighbourhood character.

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


The Seaford Community Committee will be recommending to FCC that ALL instances of “none specified” (for coverage, permeability, etc.) be replaced with appropriate and reasonable limits.
e.g.
Coverage - 50% maximum - not the current default of 60%, and
Permeability - 40% minimum - not the current default of 20%.

As described above, wherever “none specified” appears, the default value (as shown above and in the applicable State Govt Provisions) would apply for height, coverage, permeable land and setbacks. These are simply unacceptable – as they are currently stated, or as they may be changed in the future.


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


The Seaford Community Committee will also be recommending to FCC that with the exceptions of the Ebdale and CAD precincts, the majority of the City of Frankston has a 2 storey (8m) maximum height limit. The new Structure Plan for the Ebdale and CAD precincts, combined with the opportunity to split existing single residences to two, should adequately meet housing demand based on projected population growth.

To support this recommendation, we’ve discovered some very helpful information which shows the above trade-off is entirely reasonable and achievable.

Glen Eira City Council has won approval for mandatory maximum height limits over all residentially-zoned land in Glen Eira. The maximum heights are:
• 2 storey maximum across 78% of the municipality, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (formerly Minimal Change Areas)
• 3 storey maximum in Neighbourhood Centres and along tram routes
• 4 storey maximum in the 2.2% of Glen Eira residential zones comprising the Urban Villages around the railway stations of Elsternwick, Carnegie and Bentleigh.
The height limits are binding on all parties, including VCAT.”
Source:
http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Council/Media_and_news/Media_Releases/Council_wins_height_limits_over_all_residentially-zoned_land


Please compare the following maps (click on or scroll within the window):

SCC Appendix B to Amendment C95 submission - NRZ maps - Glen Eira and Frankston (Image).jpg
SCC Appendix B to Amendment C95 submission - NRZ maps - Glen Eira and Frankston (Image).jpg (94.39 KiB) Viewed 183503 times

Larger image - SCC Appendix A to Amendment C95 submission - NRZ maps - Glen Eira and Frankston

1.
Glen Eira - 78% residential area - 2 storey maximum height - NRZ.

2.
Frankston – >10% residential area - (mostly) 2 storey maximum height - NRZ.

The rest of the red coloured NRZ in South Frankston - not highlighted in this map - range from 9m to 10m, the same as General Residential Zone.
The Nepean Highway, Seaford strip is 12 metres, the same as Residential Growth Zone. To label Nepean Highway, Seaford as NRZ is totally inappropriate and misleading.


In the Glen Eira Council meeting debates, Councillor Hyams said that:
“The zones are applied by the Minister in discussion with us … we got most of what we were after because they could show that there were adequate space for growth in Glen Eira including the C60 Caulfield Village and because the staff had such a good grasp of all the issues in Glen Eira. They could answer all the questions and put a case very quickly and convincingly.

We should expect no less from our Council Officers and Councillors in Frankston.

Please note the Minister's comments regarding Glen Eira Council's Zones in the attachment.
SCC Appendix E to Amendment C95 submission - Glen Eira – Vic Govt Planning Minister comments.pdf


User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm






Re: New Residential Zones, version 2 - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Dec 21, 2013 5:22 pm


We’ve received confirmation from FCC that our submission has been received and expect that you will have received yours too.

Whilst we can't be sure, we wouldn’t expect FCC staff to action any submissions over the Christmas break. If you wanted to spend the relatively few minutes required to make a submission, your views may yet still receive attention. No guarantees, but I recall someone saying that submissions may be received after closing dates and before issues are discussed in Council – I could be wrong. Just don’t be inconsiderate and expect Council Officers to revisit their report to Councillors to include your submission close to Councillors’ vote.

If you have new ideas, I’d recommend you send ‘em on – nothing to lose.

We now await FCC's revised allocation of the new Residential Zones.


User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95 (version 2)

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:55 pm



Those who made submissions should have received notification from FCC that the issue will be discussed by Council at their 20th January, 2014 meeting.
Agenda (by the Friday prior to meetings) :arrow: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Agendas_and_Minutes

Members of the public are invited to attend, as well as ask Questions and/or address Council :arrow: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Meetings

This is Council’s opportunity to reduce, if not eliminate, VCAT objections by eliminating confusion and uncertainty by setting appropriate and clear differences between Zones, which include height, coverage, permeable land and boundary setbacks. This approach can also significantly reduce over-development of our City by too many units per block.

As the Frankston Planning Scheme amendment C95 clearly states: “Frankston City Council, IS the planning authority for this amendment” and Zone allocations are firmly within FCC's control.

This is an opportunity for Frankston Council to regain control of their local planning from VCAT – but only if sound decisions are made NOW.

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95 (version 2)

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Jan 25, 2014 11:09 pm


The issue was discussed by Council at their 20 January 2014 meeting - more info when known.
It is far from finished.
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:56 pm


Unlike first thought, the devil is indeed in the detail.

The only real changes in "Amendment C95" from the first "Housing Strategy" are:
  • the Growth Zones have been removed and - wait for it - POSTPONED to date to be fixed and yet
  • there is a Planning Panel (arranged by the Vic State Local Govt Dept to review the proposed Zones) starting on 17 March
    Frankston_C95_Directions_and_Timetable_v2.pdf
    Planning Panel Agenda
    (392.31 KiB) Downloaded 5032 times
  • many areas have been allocated the wrong Zones
  • Kananook Creek and the Wetlands have been given a little more protection
  • conditions applied by Overlays (addressing flood, inundation, bushfire, wildfire, heritage, environmental or landscape significance) have not been given adequate consideration
  • many instances of "None Specified" have been replaced with actual figures - some good, some not (see above, just below the Executive Summary)
  • the Zone names have changed from the ones used in the first "Housing Strategy"
Nice and clear - NOT!

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat May 31, 2014 6:42 pm


Here’s a pdf version of our Powerpoint presentation to the recent State Govt Planning Panel - (5.6MB)

Attachments
SCC - FCC Planning Panel Presentation 20140317.pdf
(5.5 MiB) Downloaded 4992 times
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat May 31, 2014 6:51 pm


We are concerned about the processes pertaining to C95.

Variations of the attached letter (see below) have been sent by other Panel submitters to the Frankston CEO, Mayor and all 9 Councillors.
You might like to support our position by sending a similar request. By all means use and personalise the attached if you like.

The C95 Planning Panel Report was received by Council last Wednesday, 28 May, but there appear to be no plans for public release. We understand that Councillors will be briefed on the Report this coming week. Although we don't know what the Report contains, it should be a public document.

At the 26 May Council meeting, it was explained to Councillors (seemingly for the first time) that this amendment does not need to be finalised before 1 July 2014. Although there are unsatisfactory outcomes in that scenario (see attached letter), it is now too late to obtain from Council what we really want for Seaford and Frankston. That must now come later.

With insufficient time allowed for public and Panel participants to gain a full understanding of the report nor to make any issues known, we fear that this important amendment will be rushed through on Council Officers’ recommendations only. As we observed at the Panel Hearing, these recommendations are often at variance with community opinion.


Correspondence may be sent as follows:

CEO, Dennis Hovenden:
allison.clark@frankston.vic.gov.au

Cr Glenn Aitken:
Councillors.Office@frankston.vic.gov.au

Mayor:
CouncillorDarrel.Taylor@frankston.vic.gov.au

CouncillorSandra.Mayer@frankston.vic.gov.au
CouncillorColin.Hampton@frankston.vic.gov.au
CouncillorMichael.OReilly@frankston.vic.gov.au
CouncillorRebekah.Spelman@frankston.vic.gov.au
CouncillorJames.Dooley@frankston.vic.gov.au
CouncillorBrian.Cunial@frankston.vic.gov.au
CouncillorSuzette.Tayler@frankston.vic.gov.au

or
Frankston City Council, PO Box 490, Frankston VIC 3199


Attachments
Amendment C95 to the Frankston Planning Scheme - State Govt Planning Panel Report - SCC letter to FCC.pdf
(102.82 KiB) Downloaded 4769 times
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:01 pm


We've received the following message from the Mayor:

Dear ALL,

We have just completed the brief on the C95 Amendment. I can advise that the report will be publicly available tomorrow 5 Jun 2014 by midday on the website.

Thank you.

Darrel

Cr Darrel Taylor MBA GAICD
MAYOR
Frankston City Council
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:55 pm


The Panel's report is now available for download and comment, closing on Tuesday 1 July 2014.

The Bottom Line:
  • The Panel recommends that Amendment C95 be abandoned
  • The Panel is "satisfied that the Frankston Housing Strategy (FHS) provides a generally sound basis to identifying areas of change, although it has some limitations"
  • The Panel has "identified numerous instances where the nexus between the FHS and the application of the three residential zones appeared to be skewed, confused or absent"
  • It's a shame that we have General Residential Zone in the interim, but at least we get another chance to advocate for a better outcome
Here is a link to the Planning Panel's Report:
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Planning_and_Building/Planning/Strategic_Planning/Amendments_-_Frankston_Planning_Scheme/Amendment_C95

The C95 Panel Report was received by Council on 28 May 2014. Council has decided to release the report to the community. The report is available via the following link - Frankston Amendment C95 Panel Report (1MB) - a copy is also here for when it's no longer available via the FCC website - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1_RO8yB1fC2M1JwNXE2RXRNb0U

How to Comment
Council has decided that further comment to the Panel Report can be made. Any comment is to be made by way of written response. All correspondence should be clearly marked with the following: Attention Strategic Planning – C95 Panel Report comments.

Mail
Attention: Strategic Planning
PO Box 490
Frankston Vic 3199

Email
c95panelrpt@frankston.vic.gov.au
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:44 am


I've had discussions with a couple of Councillors and also submitters to the C95 Panel Hearing.
I've suggested that a series of open and honest workshops between the above 2 groups with Council Officers may help us - together - to get out of this mess.

Will advise what happens.

Please don't forget to submit your comments on the Report - it's not good for Frankston.
Did I also mention that the default General Residential Zone now in-place is disastrous for Seaford?

As we stressed in our presentation to the Planning Panel (see link above) Seaford has considerations such as:
that no other part of Frankston is subject to.

It seems that everyone has totally ignored slides #19-23 - especially #23 - Seaford is full!

The small white areas on the image below are the only areas of Seaford that are not directly impacted by at least one sensitive overlay, but even they would be surrounded by wildfire in the event of a disaster.

Over-development anywhere in Seaford can impact the overlayed areas, through:
  • Loss of permeable land
  • Increase risk of stormwater flooding in the neighbouring areas

Overlaid Overlays.jpg
Overlaid Overlays.jpg (39.37 KiB) Viewed 178062 times


Seaford is full!

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:29 am


See our response to FCC on the C95 Panel Report below.
Thank you to those who helped out with their input.

You’ll be pleased to learn that along with 4 other willing C95 submitters, I will be attending a meeting next week with Council Officers and Councillors (all have been invited).
Thank you to Councillors Spelman and Aitken for arranging this for us.

We are looking forward to a very positive and productive discussion.
______________________________________________

One Possible Solution:
A series of open and honest workshops between Councillors, Council Officers and a few knowledgeable and willing C95 submitters may help us - together – to develop solutions that satisfy everyone.

C95 Panel Report:
The Panel is not convinced that Frankston Council is going to meet its strategic targets and stated that FCC needs more Growth Zones. Simply randomly dotting more Growth Zones around the municipality may meet the target, but that would not best serve Frankston.

The Panel wants Frankston Activities Areas more clearly defined so that they can also be used for Growth Zones.

The SCC believes that Growth Zones can be placed sensibly along SmartBus and other bus routes. The SCC would also support more responsible development in the Central Activities District, Ebdale Precinct, Hastings Rd, Cranbourne Rd and Frankston-Dandenong Rd. Properly planned and located, those precincts should provide more than sufficient development opportunities to satisfy strategic targets. These were alluded to in the Report.

The Panel did not appear to recognise any areas of Frankston as worthy of the neighbourhood residential zones, which was exceedingly disappointing. If we want to justify protecting any neighbourhoods, Frankston needs to prove it can meet its targets and still protect some neighbourhoods.

As we stressed in our presentation to the Panel, Seaford has many considerations that aren’t evident in other parts of Frankston, such as:
  • The Wetlands and surrounds
  • Traffic concerns in Seaford & Kananook Station / primary school areas
  • Environmental Significance
  • Land Subject to Inundation
  • Special Building Overlays
  • Flooding
  • Bushfire Management Overlay
  • Coastal Acid Sulphate Soil
The small white areas on the images below are the only areas of Seaford that are not directly impacted by at least one sensitive overlay, but even they would be surrounded by wildfire in the event of a disaster and would be affected by inappropriate development in the neighbouring areas.

overlays1.jpg
overlays1.jpg (17.5 KiB) Viewed 172225 times
Overlaid_Overlays.jpg
Overlaid_Overlays.jpg (39.37 KiB) Viewed 172225 times

Over-development anywhere in Seaford can impact the overlayed areas, through:
  • Loss of permeable land (by allowing inappropriately-high coverage)
  • Increase risk of stormwater flooding in the neighbouring areas
Much of the above can be mitigated by ensuring that Growth Zones are located appropriately, as recommended above.

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:34 am


Together with 4 knowledgeable C95 submitters (residents) I met with 3 Council Officers and 4 Councillors (Cr Aitken, Cr Spelman, Cr Dooley, Cr Mayer - Cr Cunial apologized - all had been invited).

Thanks again to Councillors Spelman and Aitken for arranging this for us.
It was a positive and productive discussion.

As at that date, FCC had not decided whether to continue with or abandon C95.
A Council decision is expected to be made on 28th July, 2014 - feel free to attend the Council meeting starting at 7pm.

They appeared receptive to our suggestions:

  • Growth Zones should be decided upon first (but they weren't in C95). The most important fundamental aspect of the Housing Strategy is Growth Zones – locate them appropriately and the rest of the strategy will fall into place
  • We can protect suburbs and meet strategic targets by delivering density in defined locations
  • The question of where Growth Zones should occur can best be answered by another question
  • Q. Where is the expected growth in job opportunities for our City?
  • A. Central Frankston, Dandenong and near universities and hospitals
  • All of which are better serviced via the Smart Bus and other bus routes along major roads such as Frankston-Dandenong Rd, Cranbourne Rd and Hastings Rd, in addition to Central Frankston and the Ebdale Precinct
  • Using jobs as the guideline, Growth Zones don't need to be clustered near schools, shopping centres and the 2 railway stations outside Frankston
  • Neither the State Govt nor the Panel has said that Growth Zones need to be around railway stations. That was just one of the location options. In fact, the Panel asked why we weren't using bus routes - and the Stony Point railway line.
  • The original intent of the Neighbourhood Zone (areas of little change) was to add protection from over- development to areas where existing overlays highlighted a need for special consideration. With Growth Zones established in defined corridors, it should then be within Council's scope to best apply the NRZ as well
  • The government is looking for a diversity of accommodation within our city, not within each street or neighbourhood!
  • The concept of a Seaford Coastal Village (new idea)
  • DDOs to protect Seaford (only 1 exists)
  • Review of Long Island DDO
Thank you to those who helped out with their input.

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:42 pm


Frankston: Victoria First tackles population growth, over-development

http://www.frankstonweekly.com.au/story ... F0X2lkLzEx
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:16 pm



User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:18 pm


The future of C95 is on the agenda for the 10 November 2014 Council meeting.
Good attendance may be essential.
I'll post again after I see the agenda which should be available from 7 Nov here :arrow: http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Co ... nutes_2014

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: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sat Nov 08, 2014 10:08 pm


After wading through the 10th November (OM263) 2014 Agenda to find the relevant sections.
  • The Environmental Risks image shows the areas at risk identified by FCC in 2012
  • The Map 6 - Modified C95 Amendment image shows that the areas at risk are ignored in the most recent C95 proposal (in Nov 2014)
  • The Original Housing Strategy Map - FCC's original aim image shows the areas at risk were not only ignored by FCC in 2013, but are earmarked for Growth Zones (at some point in the future)
Risks, Nov 2014 C95 & Housing Strat.jpg
Risks, Nov 2014 C95 & Housing Strat.jpg (131.91 KiB) Viewed 150647 times
Click on image to see the full image
Environmental Risk - Frankston Planning Scheme - 2012 - 21.05.jpg
Environmental Risk - Frankston Planning Scheme - 2012 - 21.05.jpg (157.97 KiB) Viewed 150647 times
Click on image to see the full image
Source
Modified C95 Nov 2014 - Map 6, P202, OM263 agenda.jpg
Modified C95 Nov 2014 - Map 6, P202, OM263 agenda.jpg (140.09 KiB) Viewed 150647 times
Click on image to see the full image
Original_Housing_Strategy_Map_for_email.png
Original_Housing_Strategy_Map_for_email.png (561.37 KiB) Viewed 150647 times
Click on image to see the full image - note that the Zone descriptions have changed and the colours are reversed in this original Housing Strategy map

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Tue Nov 11, 2014 5:26 pm


A good outcome re C95 – it has been deferred pending further research and planning.

In fact, a Motion to defer it had been tabled before the meeting (but after release of the public agenda). Since we couldn’t be sure how Councillors would vote, many residents (including me) spoke anyway – I just had to change the content and emphasis.

We will again offer to work with FCC to reach the best possible outcome.

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:06 pm



No news yet on the new Residential Zones.
We still have General Residential Zone throughout Frankston (with Overlays in certain areas).

User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Fri May 20, 2016 7:55 pm


C95 has now lapsed - with no replacement.
We now have the inappropriate General Residential Zone throughout Frankston City.

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: 662
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:28 pm



Re: New Residential Zones - Amendment C95

Postby Noel Tudball » Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:21 pm


It's been a long time between drinks .......
Please now refer to Frankston City Housing Framework Plan 2017 - http://www.seafordcc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=393

(Click on image to view & close)
Figure 37-Frankston City Housing Framework Plan.jpg
Figure 37-Frankston City Housing Framework Plan.jpg (152.54 KiB) Viewed 2405 times
User avatar
Noel Tudball
Chairman
 
Posts: 662
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

cron