MINUTES PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2018 7.00PM MUNICIPAL OFFICES BESGROVE STREET, ROSEBUD - Mornington Peninsula Shire
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MINUTES
PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2018
7.00PM
MUNICIPAL OFFICES
BESGROVE STREET, ROSEBUD
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL
WARDS AND COUNCILLORS
Briars Cr Rosie Clark
Cr Bev Colomb
Cr Sam Hearn
Cerberus Cr Kate Roper
Nepean Cr Hugh Fraser
Cr Bryan Payne
Red Hill Cr David Gill
Seawinds Cr Simon Brooks
Cr Antonella Celi
Cr Frank Martin
Watson Cr Julie Morris
EXECUTIVE TEAM
Mr John Baker Chief Executive Officer
Mr Niall McDonagh Chief Operating Officer
Mr Matt Green Chief Financial Officer
Ms Jenny Van Riel Director – Communities
AUDIO RECORDING
Please note that an audio recording of this Council Meeting will be made and be
available on the Shire’s website within seven days of the meeting.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 2
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO
1 PROCEDURAL MATTERS ........................................................................................ 4
1.1 Apologies .................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Pursuant to Section 79 of the
Local Government Act 1989 ...................................................................... 4
1.3 Confirmation of Minutes ............................................................................ 4
2 STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORTS......................................................................... 5
2.1 Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan ...................................................... 5
2.2 Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge Management Plan 2018 ............. 12
2.3 Kaufland Advisory Committee Process and Council Submission ...... 23
3 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT REPORTS.................................................... 31
3.1 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme Amendment C214 -
Final Adoption .......................................................................................... 31
3.2 Planning Scheme Amendment Request: 5 and 7 Merrylands
Avenue, Portsea ....................................................................................... 45
4 STATUTORY PLANNING REPORTS ..................................................................... 57
4.1 Arthurs Seat Chairlift Planning Permit Amendment - Council
Submission ............................................................................................... 57
5 NOTICES OF MOTION ............................................................................................ 67
6 URGENT BUSINESS ............................................................................................... 67
7 CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS ........................................................................................... 67
8 MEETING CLOSE .................................................................................................... 68
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 3
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
1 PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Meeting opened at 7.01pm.
Appointed Chairperson – Cr Kate Roper
Present
Cr Kate Roper (Chairperson)
Cr Simon Brooks
Cr Antonella Celi
Cr Bev Colomb
Deputy Mayor, Cr Rosie Clark
Cr Hugh Fraser
Mayor, Cr David Gill
Cr Sam Hearn
Cr Bryan Payne
Mr John Baker, Chief Executive Officer
1.1 Apologies
Cr Frank Martin
Cr Julie Morris
1.2 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Pursuant to Section 79 of the Local
Government Act 1989
Cr Payne disclosed an Indirect Interest in relation to Item 4.1 – Arthurs Seat Chairlift
Planning Permit Amendment – Council Submission.
1.3 Confirmation of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION
That the Minutes of previous Planning Services Committee held on 3 December 2018, be
confirmed.
COMMITTEE DECISION
Moved: Cr Celi
Seconded: Cr. Brooks
That the recommendation be adopted.
Carried
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 4
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2 STRATEGIC PLANNING REPORTS
2.1 Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan
Prepared By Leigh Northwood, Senior Planner
Authorised By Chief Operating Officer
Document ID A8468792
Attachment(s) 1. Draft Baxter Structure Plan - November 2018
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to outline the Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan (the Draft
Structure Plan) and to recommend that the Draft Structure Plan be placed on public
exhibition for a period of four weeks.
BACKGROUND
The Draft Structure Plan defines a vision to guide the future of the Baxter township over the
coming decade and outlines the objectives and strategies that will realise the vision. A
township boundary has been defined for the structure plan which emanates from the project
study area and the identification of issues and analysis from the Baxter Township Structure
Plan – Background Report (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1: Baxter Township Boundary and Location
Council has engaged consultants to undertake preparation of the Draft Structure Plan. The
consultant group includes:
Project Lead/Land Use Planning: Plan2Place – Paul Buxton;
Consultation/Stakeholder Engagement: Wayfarer Consulting – Helen Jennings;
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 5
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.1 (Cont.)
Traffic and Transport: People Place and Movement – Knowles Tivendale;
Economics: Essential Economics – Emma Keller; and
Urban Design: Peter Boyle Urban Design and Landscape Architecture – Peter Boyle.
The Draft Structure Plan has now been finalised and a copy is included as Attachment 1 to
this report.
DISCUSSION
Draft Structure Plan
The Baxter township is a small inland township situated on the Mornington Peninsula located
within the broader suburb of Baxter which comprises 987 hectares of urban and rural land.
The township’s urban land comprises 245 hectares and has a population of approximately
2,162 permanent residents (2016 Census).
Baxter faces very specific planning pressures. Baxter is located close to Peninsula Link with
good road connections to the rest of the Mornington Peninsula, however the township is
‘constrained’ by the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB is important in seeking to
consolidate township growth and critically protect and support the Green Wedge. As well as
an opportunity, this presents challenges for Baxter’s future growth and supporting
infrastructure provision.
Announcements from both the Commonwealth and Victorian State Opposition to provide a
business case for duplicating and electrifying the railway line is currently underway. This
provides an opportunity to improve connections and accessibility for residents from the
Baxter township to the metropolitan train and bus network.
The Draft Structure Plan identifies a vision for Baxter township, includes objectives to
achieve that vision, supported by key actions to meet those objectives. An implementation
plan is included in the Draft Structure Plan which clearly identifies actions, timing and
stakeholders.
Key Issues Identified in the Draft Structure Plan
Growth within Baxter is expected to accommodate at most, moderate and generally low
levels of housing growth in line with the Localised Planning Statement. Future
residential development is likely to consist of small-scale infill development of existing
vacant and occupied lots for medium density housing, but forecasts are low (of five
dwelling approvals per year).
There are limited sites available for redevelopment in the township due to the UGB
which surrounds the township. The two largest sites include Council owned land
(zoned residential), north of the supermarket site, and approximately two hectares of
vacant commercially zoned land at the intersection of Baxter-Tooradin and Frankston-
Flinders Roads. A permit has recently been issued on this site for a 150 bed, three
storey residential aged care facility, medical centre and child care centre.
The township is defined by major transport corridors. The Mornington Peninsula
Freeway bisects the town with the Baxter-Tooradin Road running through the town’s
centre. The Frankston to Stony Point rail corridor borders the town’s east. This breaks
the township into three largely separate precincts being west of Peninsula Link, the
town centre between Peninsula link and the railway line and the residential area further
to the east anchored around Baxter Primary School.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 6
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.1 (Cont.)
Although the existing commercial premises in the township trade relatively well, there is
limited demand for retail and commercial expansion in Baxter.
While most people in the township have good access to public open space (92% of
dwellings are within 400 metres of open space), the quality of open space is poor.
Many are not well integrated with their surrounding neighbourhoods and their facilities
such as playgrounds, picnic shelters and furniture are basic in nature. There are limited
numbers of mature trees in open space areas.
The township is relatively car-dependent due to the distance to major employment
areas, and allocation of space (and priority) to motor vehicles. The location of key
destinations in the township and beyond (including the Baxter Primary School) further
entrench car use. The reliance on jobs outside the area and infrequent public transport
services also contributes to car dependency. Some minor congestion issues were
noted in and around key destinations at peak times which is a symptom of car
dependency.
The Baxter township is serviced by the Stony Point Railway Line which connects from
Stony Point through Baxter to Frankston where passengers can transfer to and from
metropolitan rail and bus services. The limited destinations, lack of reliable service and
lack of frequency on the train line limits the usefulness of the service. Connections
between the bus and train services are non-existent – the only bus service on a
weekday that would offer a connection with the train at Baxter Station leaves Frankston
at the same time as the train.
The walking and cycling environment is severely compromised by major roads that cut
through the township and create real and perceived barriers to active transport
movement. The design and speed of these roads makes it feel unsafe for pedestrians
and cyclists to cross. Roundabouts in particular are designed for car movements, and
do not provide priority for pedestrians or cyclists. This restricts residents in their choice
of transport modes and leads to further car dependence.
The streetscape quality is not high with little street tree planting throughout the
township to unify the streetscape or provide shade and shelter to pedestrians. The
public realm around the shopping centre is simple and utilitarian, with spaces
prioritising movement and parking of vehicles at the expense of pedestrian movements.
While there are some pedestrian areas, their size and design does not invite gathering
or lingering by the public. The environment around the railway station requires
improvements such as access for all modes, amenity and personal safety.
Identified Vision for Baxter Township
Baxter will continue to be a small township nestled in the green wedge, offering the best of
metropolitan and rural lifestyles. It is an affordable and attractive place providing a range of
housing types, recreation opportunities, facilities and services to support the community
today and into the future. An enhanced town centre and improved public spaces and
connectivity has created a more cohesive community, while transport infrastructure ensures
that residents can continue to enjoy the benefits of the township’s location.
Objectives
The future of the Baxter township will be guided by the following six objectives:
1. To provide a range of housing choices to meet current and future community needs
and ensure the population is maintained within the township.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 7
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.1 (Cont.)
2. To ensure the continuing viability of the township’s retail and commercial areas.
3. To ensure the township continues to provide community infrastructure to meet the
needs of its residents.
4. To ensure new built form is of a scale and form appropriate to the township character.
5. To ensure residents are provided with a variety of movement options that are safe,
accessible, integrated reducing car dependence within the township.
6. To improve amenities and facilities within parks and open spaces for a range of ages
and life stages.
Key Actions
1. Council owned land located in Town Centre Precinct to be investigated for potential
rezoning to facilitate new forms of housing and potential mixed-use activity in close
proximity to the heart of the town centre and the railway station.
2. Potential design controls to facilitate medium density housing around parks (minimum
lot size of 300 square metres).
3. Improvements to public realm (lighting, footpaths, street tree planting).
4. Improvements to pedestrian and cycling facilities, safety and connections.
5. Investigate local park upgrades.
6. Advocate to Public Transport Victoria for improvements to bus network to/from Baxter.
7. Advocate to Public Transport Victoria to deliver improvements to the train station.
Consultation Methodology
Engagement Prior to preparing the Draft Structure Plan
In identifying a vision for Baxter, and key issues and opportunities for the township, the local
community and stakeholders were engaged as part of a communications strategy for the
project in late November and early December 2018, prior to preparation of the Draft Baxter
Township Structure Plan. Engagement included:
Two x two-hour drop-in sessions at the Baxter Community Hall (supported by
Councillor invitation, media releases and advertisements in local newspapers);
Targeted engagement;
Residents and businesses via ‘vox pops’ (a short survey conducted in a public place –
consultant engaging with people in the township);
General interested people via the drop-in sessions and website ‘Have Your Say’; and
Community groups contacted by email and invited to engage via the website or directly
with consultant.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 8
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.1 (Cont.)
Early Consultation Outcomes
Areas of Agreement
People valued the quiet, rural feel, the community and easy access to a range of
services in Baxter and beyond;
People felt that pedestrian and cycling facilities could be improved to increase links
through Baxter and to the broader cycling and pedestrian networks;
Some roads could be improved and made safer, particularly at intersections;
Playgrounds and open space areas could be improved to provide more activities for
children and amenity for residents;
The area around the station requires better infrastructure such as waiting areas for
passengers and additional parking; and
People wanted the rural, small town feel to remain and did not want any major
development. Some increase in housing was supported if it was in keeping with the
existing township and provided greater diversity and housing types for households not
currently catered for.
Areas of Contention
The Green Wedge was strongly supported by some while others would like to see it
relaxed for limited development.
End of Line
There was broad support for electrification of the train line but no support for end of line
stabling and other significant end of trip facilities at Baxter.
This community engagement has informed the development of the vision and objectives,
strategies and actions for the Draft Structure Plan.
Further Engagement Proposed - Draft Structure Plan:
With the preparation of the Draft Structure Plan now completed, Council now intends to
undertake a broader public consultation program through a four-week period of exhibition,
starting in late January/early February to late February/early March 2019. This engagement
will seek feedback/submissions to the Draft Structure Plan. The proposed mechanisms for
the engagement include:
Media releases;
Direct letters to key community groups, referral authorities, government agencies,
consultants and key stakeholder groups;
Social media posts;
Council website;
Hard copy ‘Have Your Say’ for customer service centres;
Advertisements to go in local newspapers; and
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 9
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.1 (Cont.)
A hard copy of the Draft Structure Plan document will also be made available at the
Mornington, Hastings and Rosebud customer service centres.
The aim of this engagement will be to seek feedback/submissions to the Draft Structure Plan
and its recommendations. It is critical that exhibition of the Draft Structure Plan be
undertaken to ensure the Plan is robust, the implementation plan is sound and delivers on
the objectives and vision for Baxter and the community and stakeholders are involved in an
open and transparent decision-making process for the future of the township. The feedback
received will be used to review, modify and improve the Draft Structure Plan and its
implementation plan prior to Councillors considering the final version of the Baxter Township
Structure Plan for adoption.
OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST
No person involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest requiring
disclosure.
CONCLUSION
The Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan aims to establish a vision for Baxter township,
supported by key objectives and actions to deliver this vision. The Draft Structure Plan
provides a framework for Baxter which protects the distinctive positive elements of Baxter
township and builds upon its opportunities. Furthermore, the Draft Structure Plan seeks to
build upon the opportunities presented by the possible electrification of the railway line from
Frankston and identifies transport and urban design improvements in that part of Baxter to
enhance useability and integration.
Public exhibition of the Draft Structure Plan as part of the broader community engagement
strategy for the project facilitates opportunity for the most robust plan possible for Baxter
township, and importantly community ownership of the final Baxter Township Structure Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Committee resolves to place the Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan as
shown in Attachment 1 on public exhibition for a period of four weeks and that written
submissions be invited.
2. That all submitters to Vision and Objectives consultation process be advised in writing
of the exhibition of the Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan, inviting them to provide
feedback on the Draft Structure Plan.
Addendum – Updated Recommendation and Attachment
Circulated Friday, 14 December 2018
UPDATED RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Committee resolves to place the Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan as
shown in Attachment 1, subject to further enhancement to detail on plans, on public
exhibition for a period of four weeks and that written submissions be invited.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 10Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.1 (Cont.)
2. That all submitters to Vision and Objectives consultation process be advised in writing
of the exhibition of the Draft Baxter Township Structure Plan, inviting them to provide
feedback on the Draft Structure Plan.
COMMITTEE DECISION
Moved: Cr Colomb
Seconded: Cr. Brooks
That the updated recommendation be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 11Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge Management Plan 2018
Prepared By Allan Cowley, Manager – Strategic Projects
Authorised By Chief Operating Officer
Document ID A8475614
Attachment(s) 1. Draft Green Wedge Management Plan 2018 Summary of
Submissions and Response
2. Draft Green Wedge Management Plan 2018 Submissions
Received During Exhibition Period. (confidential)
3. Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge Management Plan
December 2018
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present the final version of the Mornington Peninsula
Green Wedge Management Plan 2018 to Council for consideration and adoption
(Attachment 3).
The report outlines the submissions received during the exhibition period and provides a
response to the issues raised. While the submissions have been carefully considered, no
major changes to the draft Green Wedge Management Plan (GWMP) are proposed.
However, a clarification in relation to the discussion of rural living and some minor
modifications to the proposed dwelling policy are recommended.
BACKGROUND
The Mornington Peninsula’s rural area, or Green Wedge (GW), has been recognised as
an area of special significance to both the local community and the wider population of
Melbourne since at least the early 1960s.
Planning controls for the GW, were first introduced in the mid-1970s and have enjoyed
strong community support for more than 40 years. These controls have emphasised the
need to prevent urban sprawl and to maintain landscape and environmental values,
which in turn support informal recreation and agricultural land use, as well as
opportunities for appropriate tourism-based development. In addition, more than 8,500
people live in the Mornington Peninsula GW.
As Melbourne’s population increases, there are increasing pressures on the GW and a
need to establish even more effective planning and management mechanisms. As part of
this process, in September 2012 Council adopted the first interim GWMP. The GWMP
was adopted on an interim basis in part due to the need for further consultation and
policy clarification with the State government, which ultimately led to the approval of the
Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement in 2014.
In 2016 Council determined to proceed with a review of the interim GWMP and to
prepare the new Mornington Peninsula GWMP 2018. Subsequently, in March 2018 a
number of background discussion papers were prepared and released for public
comment, forming the basis for the first round of community consultation. The
consultation process also included direct consultation with key agencies and stakeholder
groups, the use of social media and a series of public information sessions.
Sixty-five submissions were received in response to the discussion papers and Council
heard from submitters at a Forward Planning Committee meeting on 21 March 2018.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 12Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018 Minutes 2.2 (Cont.) Following consideration of the initial submissions, Council considered the draft 2018 GWMP document at its meeting on 18 June 2018 and resolved, subject to a number of modifications, to place the draft GWMP on public exhibition for a period of six weeks. This exhibition process was also supported by further consultation and public meetings. The exhibition period nominally ended on 3 August 2018, however submissions received after that date have also been considered. SUBMISSIONS During the exhibition process a total of 42 new submissions were received, in addition to the 65 submissions received in response to the initial discussion papers. A comprehensive review of the new submissions and an officer response to the issues raised has been prepared and is included as Attachment 1. A full copy of all the new submissions is included as Confidential Attachment 2. The previous report on the initial submissions and copies of those submissions has also been made available to Councillors, noting that the initial submissions should be regarded as confidential as there was no explicit authorisation to make them public at the time. That said, it is considered that the combination of changes made prior to the exhibition of the draft GWMP and consideration of the issues raised in the new submissions generally address the main points raised in the initial submissions. It may also be noted that although copies of the GWMP were provided to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the Port Phillip and Western Port Catchment Management Authority, and discussions were held at officer level with those agencies, there have been no submissions from those agencies. The overwhelming majority of the submissions support the draft GWMP, and the objective of protecting the GW. None of the submissions oppose the recommendations in relation to conservation and biodiversity, although some minor clarifications have been provided based on advice from relevant officers. Further opportunity to consider policies and actions in relation to biodiversity and conservation will also be available through the exhibition of the Shire’s Biodiversity Conservation Plan, which is expected to commence shortly. Equally, there have been no objections to the recommendations relating to agriculture, agri-business and agri-tourism, other than some expressions of caution regarding the proposed investigation of opportunities to allow Peninsula branded produce grown on one farm to be sold from other farms also participating in that program. There will again be further opportunity for public comment should this matter go forward, via a planning scheme amendment process. Although none of the submissions oppose the GWMP per se, there are a number of submissions that recommend a significantly different approach to the Plan or to particular issues. These proposed ‘alternatives’ range from the designation of separate precincts within the GW, in part to facilitate additional development in some areas, through to a ‘no compromise’ approach which would exclude any further development unless strictly necessary to support agriculture, and would exclude (most) dwellings or development based on tourism, leisure and recreation. While there are many potential policy options, having regard to the intended role of the GW, the existing land use and development pattern on the Mornington Peninsula and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 13
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018 Minutes 2.2 (Cont.) key assets and values of the GW, it is considered that the major policy directions outlined in the draft GWMP remain valid and do not require significant change. These directions primarily aim to ensure that the Mornington Peninsula GW retains a rural character and function, with priority given to protecting biodiversity and landscape quality, while providing support for sustainable agriculture and informal recreation and opportunities for appropriate tourism and leisure-based activities. Future dwellings in the GW will only be approved in conjunction with the substantial and sustainable use of the land for agricultural or conservation-based purposes, having regard to the capability of the site and the surrounding land use pattern. Attachment 1 provides a more detailed summary and response to the submissions however the section below highlights some of the major issues. ISSUES Should the Green Wedge accommodate future urban development or facilities/services required to meet the needs of the growing Melbourne population? A limited number of the submissions seek either formal or defacto changes to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), or a broadening of the range of permissible uses in the GW to support the needs of the growing Melbourne population. These submissions argue that the GWMP places too much emphasis on protecting the status quo and that there should be provision to accommodate wider range of uses which will serve the future community, including retirement villages, medical centres and hospitals, training and education centres, areas for commercial and industrial use which would provide employment, as well as recreational facilities and sports grounds. These submissions are not supported as they would substantially undermine the long-term vision of the GW as a rural area, with an emphasis on landscape protection, conservation of the environment and sustainable agriculture. A possible exception relates to sports grounds, given that this use may be consistent with rural landscape character and is already permissible under the provisions of the Green Wedge Zone (GWZ). However, seeking to designate specific sites is beyond the scope of the GWMP and may be counter-productive, creating unwarranted expectations and speculation. It is also important to emphasise that the GW is only one element of the State and local planning framework, and other areas, including Major Activity Centres, are designated for urban development and associated purposes. Directing growth and development to these areas, coordinated with investment in public and private facilities, services and infrastructure, is an important complement to protection of the GW. Issues Based or Precinct Based Structure for the GWMP One substantial submission argues that the ‘issues based’ approach used in the draft GWMP is inadequate and that a ‘precinct based’ approach is more appropriate and effective. The submission argues that the Mornington Peninsula GW should be planned according to precincts with particular functions that reflect the differing characteristics and values of different areas. The designation of particular land use precincts, such as a special agricultural area or a tourism development precinct, is an approach that is used in some GWMPs and gives a strong direction in regard to the intended form of future land use for that area. However, the Mornington Peninsula’s GW is characterised by a mix of uses that has evolved over time. While some areas do have particular ‘natural advantages’ for one form of use or Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 14
Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
another, designating particular parts of the Peninsula for one type of use would arguably
discount the other values that exist in that area.
For example, designating an area as a tourism precinct may be interpreted as support for a
high concentration of commercial tourism activity that would undermine the rural landscape
character and displace agricultural use from that area.
In this context, the Mornington Peninsula GWMP applies more of an ‘issue based’ approach,
addressing the issues which apply across the whole of the GW to varying degrees, and setting
out policies which are intended to manage these issues. This approach is complemented by
existing or proposed mapping to indicate those locations where particular values, risks and
opportunities may exist.
Through this combination of issues-based policies and supporting mapping, the importance
of considering all the values of each area is given greater emphasis rather than focussing
only a certain aspect.
Dwellings in the Green Wedge and ‘Rural Living’
A number of submissions are opposed to the proposed policy outlined in the GWMP in relation
to dwellings in the GW, arguing that it represents a weakening of the current policy (adopted
by Council in 2011) and will facilitate ‘rural living’.
Rural living is not specifically defined in the planning scheme, although there is a Rural Living
Zone under the Victoria Planning Provisions. The distinctive purpose of Rural Living Zone is
“to provide for residential use in a rural environment”, and no planning permit is required for a
dwelling (subject to a default minimum lot size of two hectares), whereas agriculture is a use
which requires a planning permit.
The submissions in relation to the proposed dwelling policy generally object to the framing of
the policy in a way that requires any application for a new dwelling to be made in conjunction
with a proposal for a substantial and sustainable use of land for agricultural or conservation-
based purposes. The submissions argue that instead a new dwelling should only be
considered if strictly necessary in order to be able to conduct a proposed agricultural use on
the land and highlight that very few uses would require such occupation of the land,
particularly on smaller landholdings.
As outlined in the report on submissions (Attachment 1), it is considered that the draft new
policy is in fact consistent with the wording of the current policy, which also allows for the
consideration of conservation-based uses as the basis of a dwelling application and does not
apply a ‘strict necessity’ test.
However, the position on dwellings is an important element of the GWMP and the ‘threat’ of
agricultural uses being excluded or displaced by an increasing level of residential use in the
GW warrants substantial attention. It may be noted that approximately 17% of the lots in the
GW (823 lots) do not currently contain a dwelling (out of a total of 4,939 lots.). These ‘vacant’
lots vary in size and location, as shown in Figure 6 of the GWMP (page 22).
In terms of State Government policy, clause 11.01-1R Green Wedges – Metropolitan
Melbourne includes the objectives:
To protect the green wedges of Metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate
development.
Consolidate new residential development in existing settlements and in locations
where planned services are available and green wedge values are protected.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 15Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
Equally, clause 14.01-1S Protection of Agricultural Land aims to limit new housing
development in rural areas by:
Directing housing growth into existing settlements.
Discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from use for
dwellings or other incompatible uses.
Encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.
These policies clearly oppose ‘residential development’ and even the development of isolated
small lots for dwellings in the GW. In addition, provision for the construction of a dwelling or
the facilitating rural living is not included as a purpose of the GWZ.
That said, a dwelling is specifically included as a use which may be approved with a planning
permit in the GWZ. Furthermore, the application guidelines of the zone do not include any
specific ‘tests’ or requirements to justify the approval of a dwelling, other than the general
considerations, such as how the use or development relates to rural land use, rural
diversification, natural resource management, natural or cultural heritage management,
recreation or tourism.
In this context, the position in relation to dwellings in the GWZ is somewhat ambiguous.
Some of the submissions criticise the GWMP and the draft policy for accommodating ‘rural
living’ in the GW and argue this is contrary of the purposes and objectives of the GW.
One statement in the draft GWMP (page 27) reads as follows:
Council does not support “agriculture at all costs” but does recognise that maintaining the
opportunity for productive and sustainable agricultural use is a policy priority at both the State
and local level, and that this should not be put at risk by poorly located dwellings used
exclusively for the purpose of rural living.
The aim therefore is to harness the ongoing demand for rural living in the GW to support the
core purposes of the GW, that is, sustainable agriculture (including a high standard of land
management), habitat conservation and landscape protection.
While the intention of this statement is to emphasise the requirements that Council intends to
apply to future applications for dwellings in the GWZ, on reflection it is considered that the
reference to ‘rural living’ in this context, and similar references in the text are, in fact,
inappropriate and counter-productive, and that the text should be revised accordingly.
The important point is that Council’s policy is actually not about ‘harnessing the ongoing
demand for rural living’, in the sense of simply allowing rural living with some conditions, but is
rather to set out the conditions for a different kind of use – where a land owner is required to
establish and maintain a substantial and sustainable use of the land for an agricultural or
conservation based purpose (or a combination of both), and the occupation of a dwelling on
the site is required to be integrated with and dependent on maintaining this ‘core use’. The
term ‘integrated occupation’ could be used to distinguish this form of use from ‘rural living’,
where there are no such requirements.
The draft policy indicates that no more than 10% of the site (or 2,000 square metres,
whichever is the lesser) may be used for the dwelling footprint. A Land Management Plan
(LMP) is also required, which must demonstrate how a proposed use responds to the natural
features and values of the land, and the opportunities and constraints that have been taken
into consideration. The text of the draft policy has been slightly revised to provide more
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 16Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
emphasis on the need for land capability assessment and the provision of an implementation
plan to demonstrate the (realistic) capacity of the land owner to establish and maintain the
proposed use(s).
Of course, it is reasonable to query whether this is just a matter of semantics and to argue that
any policy which enables additional dwellings to be considered, except where absolutely
necessary for agricultural production, will still, in effect, constitute ‘rural living’ of some kind.
This is particularly relevant on smaller lots or where the investment in the dwelling may be
substantially greater than in the agricultural or conservation-based land use.
The position expressed in the GWMP is that, from a planning point of view, it is the use and
management of the land that matters, rather than whether the owner obtains their livelihood
primarily from that use, and if the (majority of the) land is substantially and sustainably used
for farming or conservation, and that use is required to continue in the long term, then the
policy is considered to be consistent with the purposes of the GW.
A landowner may still value the ability to live on a site to enjoy rural amenity, but this, in itself,
is not contrary to the aims of the GW and may, in fact, encourage a higher standard of land
management through for example weed management and/or habitat improvement.
A further point raised in relation to dwellings in the GW is whether dwellings (both existing and
proposed) which are not necessarily the only or normal place of residence of the owner
should, in fact, be considered to be a “dwelling” in terms of the planning scheme. The scheme
defines a dwelling as: “a building used as a self-contained residence”.
As outlined in the summary of submissions (Attachment 1), the concept of ‘a residence’ can
be interpreted in a number of ways, but, in practice, buildings used primarily by the owners
of the land for the purpose of ‘residing’ on the land (for a long or short period) have been
accepted as “dwellings” and this is still considered to be a valid approach to this matter.
Importance of the Functional Landscape
One of the submissions highlighted the importance of focussing on the ‘functional
landscape’ of the GW, essentially the need to maintain the health of the environmental
systems and landscape that supports all of the beneficial uses – whether agriculture,
recreation or tourism. This is different way to express the goal of sustainability, and has
been incorporated, where appropriate into the text.
The Provision for Tourism and Leisure-Based Use and Development
Submissions in relation to tourism-based use and development are varied, with some
seeking more scope for development and others opposing any further commercial tourism
in the GW. There are also some submissions relating to provision for temporary ‘events’.
The draft GWMP highlights:
A. That it is possible (and important) to distinguish between the recreational role of the
Mornington Peninsula, based on outdoor, unstructured recreation, and the role of the
Peninsula in providing opportunities for tourism-based use and development.
B. There is already a significant level of tourism-based development in the GW which not
only attracts visitors to the Peninsula but also provides leisure opportunities for residents
and is an important source of local employment.
C. The Planning Scheme currently applies mandatory controls in relation to minimum site
areas and maximum capacity to restaurants, function centres and some forms of visitor
accommodation, as well as requiring that such uses may only be established ‘in
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 17Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
conjunction with’ some agricultural or conservation-based uses. However, there are
currently a wide range of other tourism-based uses which require planning approval but
are not subject to any specific requirements.
D. Critically, while it is considered that tourism-based development currently has a
‘moderate’ impact on the overall rural character and function of the GW there are
increasing pressures and it is important to consider the capacity of the GW to absorb
further change, and how best to manage the demands for future development.
In this context, the GWMP outlines a number of proposed actions to strengthen the
planning framework in relation to tourism and leisure-based development. These actions
include:
Retaining the current minimum site area requirements as a means of ‘capping’ the
potential for the most intensive forms of tourism-based activity – and, in effect, directly
linking new development with the management of larger lots.
Better definition of the term ‘in conjunction with’ in order to more strongly link various
forms of tourism related development to the use of land for a ‘core’ agricultural or
conservation-based use.
Better definition of the scope and limits to ancillary uses.
Seeking to establish more specific requirements in relation to a wider range of tourism-
based uses, particularly where these are comparable to those already subject to
mandatory requirements. For example, a caravan park based on fully equipped ‘cabin’
accommodation is arguably a form of group accommodation but is not currently subject
to the same mandatory requirements. Similarly, large spa-based developments are
arguably comparable to restaurants in terms of their potential impacts.
Many of these changes will require support from the State Government (and, in fact,
preferably changes to the State Government’s Victoria Planning Provision). The GWMP is
intended to set out the strategic planning basis to advocate for such changes.
In regard to temporary tourism-based events, the GWMP includes an action (4.14) to
develop guidelines in relation to the approval of irregular tourism and leisure-based events
in the GW. A limited number of such events may already be considered either as ‘ancillary’
to an existing use or (subject to a planning permit) as a ‘place of assembly/restricted place
of assembly’ under the existing provisions of the GWZ.
However, the Place of Assembly provisions within the GWZ specifically exclude a Function
Centre (land used to cater for private functions including the provision of food and drink) ,
and therefore the ability to apply to ‘host’ an event of this kind on privately owned land
would be limited to no more than 10 ‘events’ per year, and only where the event is not
proposed for a private function.
There is no proposal in the GMWP to broaden the scope to allow more frequent and/or
more intensive use of land for the hosting of functions.
Response to Site Specific Requests
A number of submissions seek site specific changes to the planning scheme, generally to
allow increased development or, in fact, request that the GWMP support changes to the
UGB.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 18Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
While the GWMP provides policy directions that may be used in the assessment of site
specific requests it does not go into this level of detail, and such proposals are more
appropriately pursued through site-specific amendment proposals, which require an
applicant to provide a thorough strategic justification.
That said, it is important to be clear that the draft GWMP does not support changes to the
UGB or changes to the current GW subdivision controls. Retaining ‘green breaks’ between
townships is considered to be one of the distinctive features of the Peninsula’s settlement
pattern and eroding these areas or allowing the further encroachment of uses better located
within the more urban areas of the Peninsula into the GW is considered to be contrary to
the basic principles of a GW policy.
The Need to Improve Compliance
A number of the submissions which generally support the proposed GWMP also emphasise
the importance of ensuring compliance with proposed policy requirements and planning
permit conditions (particularly in relation to dwellings), and express scepticism in relation to
the current level of compliance.
The GWMP seeks to address concerns in relation to compliance in a number of ways which
include:
Recognising current areas of uncertainty in relation to planning scheme provisions and
definitions, which makes the task of ensuring compliance more difficult, and proposing to
address these points through advocacy to the State Government and/or local policy.
Requiring LMPs to be realistic and specific in terms of their requirements, so that
compliance can be more readily assessed.
Ensuring landowners and (particularly) prospective future owners are fully aware of the
obligations required under planning permits, by continuing to include a requirement for a
section 173 agreement to be registered on title. While this requirement has not been
supported by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in all cases, it highlights the
level of commitment required to such plans.
Establishing a greater level of accountability by landowners by requiring:
o A demonstrated commitment to the implementation of an approved LMP prior to
the commencement of any new dwelling; and
o Requiring regular compliance through self-reporting, by the landowner for the first
10 years.
Undertaking more proactive compliance monitoring, for example, in conjunction with the
proposed new landowner reporting requirements for dwellings, and the continuing use of
aerial photo monitoring in relation to vegetation protection.
Providing more regular information to Council (and the community) in relation to
compliance monitoring.
Providing a ‘compliance’ pathway, where appropriate, to set out how a landowner may
achieve compliance with planning requirements.
Advocacy to the courts and State Government for penalties appropriate to the impact of
non-compliance and active breaches.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 19Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
This package of actions is intended to reflect recognition that compliance is critical to the
credibility of planning controls in the GW and to put in place systems to better support officers
in achieving compliance outcomes.
OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST
No person involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest requiring
disclosure.
CONCLUSION
Having had regard to the submissions received, as well as feedback from other sections of
Council, the text of the GWMP has been revised and a revised version of the document is
included as Attachment 3.
There are no changes to the main policy directions and the major changes of substance
relate to the discussion of rural living and some additions to the draft dwelling policy, as
outlined in the above report. Some minor editing and formatting may be undertaken post
adoption to improve presentation of the document, but this will not affect the policy content.
The proposed Mornington Peninsula GWMP 2018 does not ‘solve’ all of the planning issues
that affect the GW and equally many of the actions either identify the need for further
investigation and policy development and/or are dependent on the support of other (State
Government) agencies.
Implementation of the GWMP will also require a substantial number of further projects,
investigations and, in some cases, planning scheme amendments, however, the Plan itself
is a significant step forward. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council adopt the
Mornington Peninsula GWMP 2018 as included in Attachment 3.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Committee adopts the Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge Management Plan
2018 as included in Attachment 3.
2. That the Committee resolves that Attachment 2 to this report be retained as a
confidential item pursuant to section 77(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 1989
as it .
UPDATED RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Committee adopts the Mornington Peninsula Green Wedge Management Plan
as shown in Attachment 3, with an amendment in the Executive Summary and the Vision
and other consequential sections of the Green Wedge Management Plan, to include
words that recognise the critical role of sustainable agriculture as a key land use to be
protected and supported.
2. That the Committee resolves that Attachment 2 to this report be retained as a
confidential item pursuant to section 77(2)(a) and (b) of the Local Government Act 1989
as it contains personal submitter details.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 20Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
Suspension of Standing Orders
Moved: Cr Celi
Seconded: Cr Colomb
That Standing Orders be suspended.
Carried
Deputations
Ms Sandra Rigo, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd
Extension to Speaking Time
Moved: Cr Celi
Seconded: Cr Payne
That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Ms Rigo in relation to
the above matter.
Carried
Mr Chris De Silva, Mesh Planning
Extension to Speaking Time
Moved: Cr Gill
Seconded: Cr Brooks
That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Mr De Silva in relation
to the above matter.
Carried
Mr Geoff Coghill and Mr Steve Marshall, Victorian Farmers Federation
Extension to Speaking Time
Moved: Cr Gill
Seconded: Cr Hearn
That a two minute extension to the speaking time be granted to Mr Coghill and Mr
Marshall in relation to the above matter.
Carried
Mr Paul Nitas, Hillview Quarries
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 21Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.2 (Cont.)
Resumption of Standing Orders
Moved: Cr Hearn
Seconded: Cr Celi
That Standing Orders be resumed.
Carried
COMMITTEE DECISION
Moved: Cr Celi
Seconded: Cr Gill
That the updated recommendation be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 22Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.3 Kaufland Advisory Committee Process and Council Submission
Prepared By Leigh Northwood, Senior Planner
Authorised By Chief Operating Officer
Document ID A8477065
Attachment(s) 1. Draft Submission
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to:
Update Council in regard to the Kaufland Advisory Committee process and status; and
Seek Council’s resolution to prepare and make submissions to the Advisory Committee
in late January 2019, in line with the matters discussed in this report.
BACKGROUND
German operator Kaufland is planning to enter the Australian supermarket sector, with an
initial proposal to open a network of six locations in metropolitan Melbourne.
Kaufland has identified a site at 1158 Nepean Highway, Mornington as one of the six
potential sites. The site is currently zoned Industrial 3, has a Development Plan Overlay
(Schedule 2) across the parcel, and Kaufland would require the land to be rezoned to be
permissible. There is currently no approved Development Plan located across the parcel.
The store format which Kaufland is planning to operate in Australia will be large in footprint
compared with traditional supermarkets, ranging in size of between 5,000 – 6,000 square
metres (GLA – Gross Leasable Area). By way of comparison the average size of full-line
supermarkets currently operated by Coles and Woolworths is around 4,000 square metres
(GLA).
Branded as a hypermarket, Kaufland stores are likely to encompass a full-line supermarket
offer, combined with elements typically found in discount department stores in Australia. The
large footprint will allow Kaufland stores to offer an extensive range of fresh food and
groceries, complemented by supporting non-food goods which are part of the staple
supermarket offer such as stationery, toys, household goods and personal hygiene goods.
Kaufland stores could also potentially include a range of discount department store type non-
food goods such as crockery, cutlery, cookware, small electrical appliances and other
homewares, as well as a small provision of apparel and bedding products. Each Kaufland
store is also planned to dedicate a small provision of ancillary floorspace to accommodate a
café as well as other complementary uses (e.g. chemist, florist, etc.).
Kaufland initially engaged with Council’s Economic Development officers at a meeting
organised by the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources
(DEDJTR) in mid-September 2018. At that meeting they tabled draft plans for discussion. It is
noted that Council was not be privy to the actual proposed plans until the formal public
exhibition process to the Advisory Committee is initiated. The formal public exhibition
process commenced on Wednesday, 5 December 2018, where plans and all supporting
documentation was made publicly available.
The proposed Kaufland Mornington site is located on the south-west side of the current Bata
shoe factory and outlet store. This strip of Industrial 3 Zoned land has a mix of land uses,
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 23Planning Services Committee 17 December 2018
Minutes
2.3 (Cont.)
including the Mornington Industrial Park (which has a mix of small industry premises), the
Peninsula Hub (primarily large format retail centre) and a Bunnings Warehouse at the corner
of Bungower Road and the Nepean Highway. The Peninsula Hub contains a number of
national homemaker and appliances tenants such as Harvey Norman, The Good Guys,
Lincraft, Bedshed, Snooze, Early Settlers and Officeworks. The Peninsula Hub centre also
contains an Aldi supermarket which opened in April 2016.
The indicative layout of the proposed Kaufland Mornington store shows that the supermarket
(GLA) is to be 5,691 square metres (including liquor, back of house, administration and
services). The development is also planned to include two smaller tenancies as well as
internal mall area.
DISCUSSION
Advisory Committee Process
An Advisory Committee has been appointed to provide advice to the Minister for Planning on
all relevant planning matters associated with the location, development and use of the six
proposed Kaufland supermarket-based stores in metropolitan Melbourne.
The Advisory Committee has undertaken public exhibition on each site throughout
Melbourne, including the Mornington proposed site. Interested parties will be able to view the
planning proposal and make submissions.
The Advisory Committee Process is composed of:
Public exhibition period;
Directions Hearing;
Public hearing; and
Advisory Committee report to the Minister for Planning.
Public Exhibition Period
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has commenced the
public exhibition as of Wednesday, 5 December 2018. Submissions would normally only be
received for a maximum of 20 business days, however given the submissions period falls
over the Christmas period, DELWP has advised that the submissions process be extended
to 1 February 2019. As this date falls before any Council meeting, we have therefore
prepared the attached submission to ensure that Council makes a submission to the
Advisory Committee before the closing date.
Directions Hearing
A Directions Hearing has been scheduled by Planning Panels Victoria for 8 February 2019.
The purpose of the Directions Hearing is:
To consider any preliminary or procedural issues and give directions about the conduct
of the Hearing including the exchange of any expert witness reports;
Make arrangements for the Hearing, including the timetable and Hearing venue; and
Answer any questions people may have about the Hearing.
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 24You can also read
