“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!“
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:
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 :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
Submissions on Amendment C95 closed on Friday 13 December 2013. We hope you voiced your opinion in a submission.
Submission info is here
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
================================================================================
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.
- FCC must adopt the State Govt's Housing Strategy Zones (and they have)
- However, where the Zones
================================================================================
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
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)
Click on image to see the full image
Source
Click on image to see the full image
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:
- FCC will decide (or announce their decision) on the future of C95 amendment at their 10 November meeting
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Meetings
http://www.frankston.vic.gov.au/Your_Council/Council_and_Committee_Meetings/Council_Agendas_and_Minutes_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
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 :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
================================================================================
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 :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
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
- 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 :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
================================================================================
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
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 :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Seaford wetlands GRZ 3 environs schedule
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Seaford wetlands NRZ 6 environs schedule
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Seaford Kananook Creek NRZ 7 environs schedule
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Seaford Kananook Creek NRZ 10 environs west schedule
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Sandhurst map (for comparison)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
- Sandhurst Schedule (for comparison)
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
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