Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
16 July 2015
Brett Davis, Chair
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
List of Abbreviations
DDO: Design and Development Overlay
DEECD: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
DELWP: Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
DPO: Development Plan Overlay
DTPLI: Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)
EPA: Environment Protection Authority
IPO: Incorporated Plan Overlay
MSS: Municipal Strategic Statement
16 July 2015
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Overview
Amendment Summary
The Amendment: Nillumbik Planning Scheme C85
Subject Site: Lot 1 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge
Planning Authority: Nillumbik Shire Council
Authorisation: Council granted permission to proceed without Authorisation on 1
September 2014
Exhibition: 25 November 2014 to 13 February 2015
Submissions: Council received 68 submissions (see list at Appendix A), 23 supporting
the Amendment, 28 opposing and 14 submissions made suggestions relating to what the
proposal should incorporate and / or sought clarification from Council. There were 3
submissions from referral authorities expressed no objection to the Amendment.
Panel Process
The Panel: Brett Davis
Directions Hearing: Nillumbik Shire Council, Greensborough, 1 June 2015
Panel Hearing: Nillumbik Shire Council, Greensborough, 24 June 2015
Site Inspections: Unaccompanied, 23 June 2015
Appearances: Nillumbik Shire Council represented by:

Ms Alison Fowler and Mr Chad Griffiths with expert evidence called from:

Mr Craig Czarny, Urban Designer, Hansen Partnership

Mr Ross Coverdale, CEO Araluen Centre

Mr David McKinnon

Ms Lorna Smith

Ms Anne Fitzpatrick

Mr Scott Breschkin
Date of this Report: 16 July 2015
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Executive Summary
Summary
Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme seeks to rezone the former
Hurtsbridge Secondary College from Public Use Zone 2 – Education (PUZ2) to Township
Zone (TZ) and introduce Development Plan Overlay Schedule 7 (DPO7) to the Nillumbik
Planning Scheme to facilitate the development of intergenerational housing following the
purchase of land by Council.
Since 2001 the subject site has been identified by Council as a potential site to progress
Council’s housing diversity and ageing in place objectives through the Hurstbridge
Township Strategy 2000, and the Hurstbridge Concept Plan 2010.
The Council received 68 submissions of varying support and objection. Most supported the
idea of ‘intergenerational housing’, but not the concept plan used by Council in which to
illustrate to the community how such a development could look. A number of submitters
queried elements of the concept plan such as density, heights and how it did not fit with
the Hurstbridge Semi‐Bush character, and objected to Council purchasing and potentially
selling the land.
The Panel generally supports the Council’s approach and commends its ambition to
deliver an innovative and aspirational outcome for the site. Whilst the opinions of the
community varied considerably on the future of the site, the Panel was compelled by the
strong history of strategic support to redevelop the former school site, enshrined in various
Council documents that sit as reference documents in the Nillumbik Planning Scheme.
The Panel did not agree with the contention of a number of submitters that the
Amendment was flawed, improperly notified and should be re‐exhibited. In addition, the
Panel was concerned with the format and wording of DPO7.
Amendment C85 is the first step for Council in being able to deliver an intergenerational
housing opportunity for Hurstbridge and the surrounding region. With this, comes design
challenges and demonstrates Council’s forward planning on this important issue.
Recommendation
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:
Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme should be adopted as exhibited
subject to the following:
1. Amend Development Plan 1. Overlay Schedule 7 to remove duplication with the
existing Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5. Correct heading numbers,
apply language consistency and rationalise the number of development plan design
objectives.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
1
Introduction
1.1
The Amendment
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Amendment C85 to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme (the Amendment) relates to the
Hurstbridge Secondary College and was prepared by the Nillumbik Shire Council as
Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to rezone the former school
site at Lot 1, PS 547201P, 44 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge from Public Use Zone 2 –
Education (PUZ2) to Township Zone and introduce Development Plan Overlay Schedule 7
(DPO7) to the Nillumbik Planning Scheme to facilitate the development of
intergenerational housing following the purchase of land by Council.
A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 1 June 2015. Prior to the
Hearing, the Panel undertook an inspection of the subject site and its surrounds.
1.2
Authorisation
Authorisation to proceed with the Amendment was sought from the Minister for Planning
on August 2014. Council was granted permission to prepare the amendment without
authorisation on 1 September 2014.
1.3
Preliminary Matters
At its meeting of 14 April 2015, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel. As a
result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the
Minister for Planning on 27 April 2015 and comprised Kathy Mitchell (Chair) and Brett
Davis.
After the Directions Hearing on 1 June, due to the relatively small number of parties
requesting to be heard, it was decided that the Panel did not require two members. On 9
June 2015 the Panel was re‐appointed to one member (Brett Davis).
At the Hearing it was raised that a petition containing over 600 signatures from the “Hands
off Hursty” group was presented to Council the evening before the Hearing took place on
22 June 2015, requesting that Council withdraw the current proposal for rezoning. Council
advised that there was no formal recommendation but that the petition was served as a
notice of motion and this was noted by the Panel.
1.4
Procedural Matters
A number of submitters argued that the stated justification of the Amendment was
incorrect. It was argued that objectors were deterred from making a submission by the
wording of the Explanatory Report that stated since 2001 the site has been identified by
Council as a potential site to progress Council’s housing diversity and aging in place
objectives as identified in the Hurstbridge Township Strategy.
On the matter of inappropriate notification, Mr Griffiths, on behalf of Council in its right of
reply noted:
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Regarding the explanatory report it is a difficult matter for the community to comprehend
the text. That’s why Council commissioned Hansen to articulate the vision. It helps Council
to communicate the amendment.
On balance, the Panel concludes that Council had not erred in its communication or
exhibition. It was required to give 4 weeks’ notice and in the end gave just on 3 months, to
best capture the Christmas holiday period.
1.5
The subject land and surrounds
The subject site is located within the township of Hurstbridge. Hurstbridge Township
comprises residential and commercial buildings and open space on both sides of
Heidelberg– Kinglake Road and Graysharps Road generally is surrounded by open space
and recreation uses.
The subject site (Figure 1) is located approximately 330 metres from the Hurstbridge Town
Centre, approximately 1.8 hectares in size located between the Hurstbridge railway line
and Diamond Creek corridor. The land was previously occupied by the Hurstbridge
Secondary College. The site ceased being used as a high school in 1998.
The site is currently vacant, relatively flat and contains scattered native trees. A dense
canopy buffer exists on the northern edge along the common boundary with the adjoining
Ben Frilay Oval. To the north is the recently constructed Hurstbridge wetlands and
Hurstbridge East oval to the south. Land opposite the site contains the Hurstbridge Family
Hub and basketball court. Further north contains the Hurstbridge railway station, two
kindergartens, bowling club and Ferguson Park.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
1.6
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Background to the proposal
Since 2001 the subject site has been identified by Council for purchase. Council previously
purchased the balance of the site from Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development (DEECD) in 2012.
In 2012, Council purchased other parts of the former College site comprising the flood
plain of the Diamond Creek containing two sports grounds and part of an elevated section
of the site which included the former school library building and gymnasium. This land was
rezoned from PUZ2 to part PPRZ and part PUZ6 – (Local Government) through
Amendment C79 in 2012.
In June 2013, the DEECD wrote to Council and advised that the former Hurstbridge
Secondary School site had been identified, along with a number of other sites, as surplus
to DEECD needs and is to be prepared for rezoning and sale.
At that time the Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee to review and
report on the most appropriate planning controls for each surplus site. The Hurstbridge site
was included in the second round of sites to be considered by the Advisory Committee.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Prior to the commencement of the second round of the Advisory Committee on 15 October
2013, Council endorsed that officers proceed with investigations and discussions with the
State Government to identify the most realistic and viable approach to the development of
the former school site to increase housing options for ageing in place.
Following discussions, the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) wrote to Council
outlining the general terms and conditions upon which Council could purchase the site.
Council subsequently resolved on 17 December 2013 to purchase the land as an interim
measure to facilitate the future development of the site, by suitable agencies, for housing
to enable ageing in place and intergenerational living.
1.7
Zoning and Overlays
Land immediately surrounding the site is included in either the Public Park and Recreation
Zone (PPRZ) or the PUZ. Further to the east and west land is zoned in the Township
Zone.
Several planning scheme overlays apply to the surrounding land, including:

Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO): Sites of Faunal and Habitat
Significance;

ESO 4: Waterways;

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO); and

Design and Development Overlay (DDO): Hurstbridge Township.
1.8
Issues dealt with in this report
The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it
during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has
been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections
of specific sites.
This report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Planning Context;

Use of the Township Zone;

Development Plan Overlay; and

Other matters and submissions.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
2
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Planning Context
Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the
Explanatory Report.
The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal
of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.
2.1
Policy framework
State Planning Policy Framework
Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the State
Planning Policy Framework:

The Amendment responds to Clause 11 Settlement by providing for land zoned for
commercial Clause 11.02‐3 Structure Planning: To facilitate the orderly development of
urban areas.

Clause 15.01‐1 Urban Design: To create urban environments that are safe, functional
and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

Clause 15.01‐5 Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character: To recognise and
protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Clause 16.01‐1 Integrated Housing: To promote a housing market that meets
community needs.

Clause 16.01‐2 Location of residential development: To locate new housing in or close
to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites
that offer good access to services and transport.

Clause 16.01‐3 Strategic redevelopment sites: To identify strategic redevelopment
sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.

Clause 16.01‐4 Housing Diversity: To provide for a range of housing types to meet
increasingly diverse needs.

Clause 16.01‐5 Housing affordability: To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs,
transport and services.
Local Planning Policy Framework
Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives:

Clause 21.05 – Settlement and Housing, namely:

Objective 1: To provide for a range of housing types to meet the projected increase
in the number and type of households within the municipality, while respecting the
neighbourhood character and protecting the natural and cultural heritage values of
the locality.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85


Objective 3: To consolidate and sustain existing urban areas and township
character.

Objective 5: To maintain and enhance the character of urban and township areas.
Clause 21.05‐2 – Rural Land Use:

Objective 5: To protect and enhance rural landscape character.
Clause 21.05‐3 – Environment, Conservation and Landscape:

Objective 4: To protect places of natural and cultural heritage.

Objective 7: To protect and enhance streetscapes and landscapes in the Shire.
Clause 21.05‐4 – Economic Development:


16 July 2015



Panel Report
Objective 3: To promote good urban design in all townships.
Clause 22.01 – Medium Density Housing Policy:

To identify appropriate locations for the facilitation of medium density housing
development.

To ensure that medium density housing development is compatible with the existing
character of the area.
Clause 22.12 – Neighbourhood Character Policy:

To ensure that development is responsive to the preferred future character of the
area.

To retain and enhance the identified elements that contributes to the character of
the area.
2.2
Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes
The Amendment is consistent with Ministerial Direction No 9 (Metropolitan Strategy) and
Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment of Amendments).
Amendment C85 is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of
Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act.
2.3
Plan Melbourne
Plan Melbourne, introduced in 2014 provides the strategic framework for housing growth
across the metropolitan area and in particular seeks to delivery new development in
defined locations with appropriate infrastructure and services.
The Strategy recognises that Melbourne’s population is ageing and that future housing
supply will need to take into account the changing needs of households for different types
of accommodation over a lifetime.
Council’s response to Plan Melbourne outlined outer suburban areas such as Nillumbik,
the emerging demographic need is for smaller housing suited to an ageing population,
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
which should also be more affordable. The average number of persons constituting a
household in Nillumbik is expected to decline from 3.14 persons in 2011 to 3.01 by the
year 2031 (DTPLI Victoria in Future 2012). A smaller household size has implications for
the type of housing and services to be provided in the future to ensure residents have
housing choice.
2.4
Adopted Policies
Shire of Nillumbik Neighbourhood Character Study (2000)
The Nillumbik Neighbourhood Character Study provides a detailed strategic basis for
housing, landscape, built form and general development policy in the Shire.
Nillumbik Residential Design Guidelines (2000 – revised 2003)
The Residential Design Guidelines form part of the implementation of the Nillumbik
Neighbourhood Character Study. The Study identifies 18 Character Precincts in the Shire,
each having a Preferred Future Character statement and Design Guidelines. The
Residential Design Guidelines provide further detailed design advice and suggestions for
methods to achieve the Preferred Character, Design Objectives and Design Responses
contained in the Neighbourhood Character Precinct brochures that have been prepared for
each character area.
Nillumbik Housing Strategy (2001)
This strategy provides an adopted framework for decisions on housing and settlement and
sets objectives for facilitating the provision of housing to meet current and future needs.
Hurstbridge Township Strategy (2000)
The Hurstbridge Township Strategy was adopted by Council in March 2000. The purpose
of the strategy is to provide a land use strategy to guide the future use, conservation and
development of the Township over the next 20 years. The Strategy applies to the
Hurstbridge Township and surrounding hinterland areas.
The Strategy contains 55 recommendations around the key themes of Settlement and
Housing, Environment, Rural Land Use, Economic Development, Infrastructure and
Strategy Implementation.
The Strategy recommends in relation to the subject site:
That any decision to amend the zoning of the Hurstbridge Secondary College Site not be
progressed until a determination has been made by the State Education Department or
other interested parties, on the end use of the site. As part of the determination of the end
use of the site, consideration should be given to the application of a Development Plan
Overlay to the site that requires an assessment of the environmental significance and
hazards of the land, details measures to manage and protect these environmental values
and sites out a concept plan to guide future development.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Hurstbridge Concept Plan (2010)
The Hurstbridge Concept Plan was adopted by Council in 2010, in order to provide
Hurstbridge with improved access to community services and facilities, with a focus on
recreation, leisure, sport, health and community services for older people, families and
children, taking into consideration social, economic, cultural and environmental factors.
The Concept Plan focusses on Ferguson’s Paddock and the surrounding open space
corridor including the former Hurstbridge Secondary School site. It identifies the range of
uses of areas within the corridor and it provides Council with strategic direction for current
and future use, including any potential development of the open space corridor.
Precinct 2 within the Concept Plan discusses the subject site and specifies that Council
continue to advocate to DEECD for the development of an aged care or community facility
on the balance of the land which previously contained the classrooms.
Hurstbridge Urban Design Guidelines Heidelberg‐Kinglake Road (Main Road)
Precinct (March 2013)
The Hurstbridge Design Guidelines were adopted by Council in 2013 and included as a
reference document in the planning scheme as part of Amendment C60 (discussed further
below).
The guidelines guide future development of land within the precinct to ensure the preferred
character of the area is realised. The guidelines include objectives and directions in
relation to vegetation, topography, streetscape pattern, functionality, sustainability, building
height and form, building style and façade composition, roof form, materials, colours, hues
and texture, Access and parking, boundary treatments – landscape and fencing, signage
and lighting, footpaths, landscaping, street furniture, lighting and signage.
2.5
Relevant Amendments
This section briefly outlines Amendments of relevance to the subject site.
Amendment C79 (2012)
Amendment C79 rezoned land at 36A, 42, 36‐44 and 50 Graysharps Road, Hurstbridge.
The land comprised existing Nillumbik Shire Council land at 36‐44 Graysharps Road and
part of the former Hurstbridge High school site acquired by Council from the Department of
Education at 36A, 42 and 50 Graysharps Road, comprising the flood plain of the Diamond
Creek containing two sports grounds, and part of an elevated section of the site which
included the former school library building and gymnasium.
The Amendment rezoned the land parcels from Public Use Zone Schedule 2 (Education)
to part Public Park and Recreation Zone and part Public Use Zone: Schedule 6 (Local
Government).
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Amendment C60 (2013)
Amendment C60 progressed implementation of the Hurstbridge Township Strategy by
applying a suite of planning controls to provide for the land use and built form
recommendations of the Strategy. The amendment:

Amended the Municipal Strategic Statement to include reference to the Hurstbridge
Township Strategy and the Hurstbridge Urban Design Guidelines.

Applied the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 5: Hurstbridge Township to
the Heidelberg‐Kinglake Road (Main Road) Precinct in Hurstbridge, to require that any
application for a permit will satisfy a range of design requirements and outcomes
intended to provide built form sympathetic to the Hurstbridge character.
Amendment C87 (2014)
Amendment C87 introduced the State Government’s new residential zones into the
Planning Scheme.
2.6
Conclusion
The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant
sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
3
Use of the Township Zone
3.1
The Issue
Panel Report
16 July 2015
A number of submissions questioned the appropriateness of applying the Township Zone.
Evidence and Submissions
Council submitted that rezoning of the land from PUZ2 ‐ Education is required as the land
is no longer in the ownership of the DEECD. As such, the application of the Township
Zone will enable the land to be developed for residential purposes.
It outlined that the purpose of the Township Zone is to:

To provide for residential development and a range of commercial, industrial and other
uses in small towns.

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character
guidelines.

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other
non‐residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.
In its submission, Council outlined its principles for applying the residential zones. It noted:
In examining the available zone options, it is considered the Township Zone is the most
appropriate to apply to the subject site, as it allows for a flexible range of uses in small
towns and enables a permit to be considered for more intensive forms of housing whilst
also taking into consideration neighbourhood character. It is also generally accepted
practice when rezoning land to include it in the same zone applying to surrounding land. In
this case residential land surrounding the site is included in the Township Zone.
In examining the available zone options, Council considered the Township Zone is the
most appropriate to apply to the subject site, as it allows for a flexible range of uses in
small towns and enables a permit to be considered for more intensive forms of housing
whilst also taking into consideration neighbourhood character. Council argued that it was
generally accepted practice when rezoning land to include it in the same zone applying to
surrounding land. In this case residential land surrounding the site is included in the
Township Zone.
In his submission to the Panel, Mr McKinnon argued that the Township Zone permitted
industrial, commercial and residential use. In concert with the application of the DPO, he
argued it was unfair to the community who have to contest the openness of the proposal
now and then battle any developments into the future without any objection or appeal
rights.
A number of submissions raised concerns how the Township Zone may affect loss of
amenity, urban design, traffic, character and parking issues. It was argued by Mr
McKinnon that these concerns could have been addressed and community concerns
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
allayed if the Council had undertaken a different planning process path. Issues of design
and character are addressed in Chapter 4.
Mr McKinnon submitted the land would be better suited to active recreation zoning that
would be a better fit within the surrounding public park and wetlands and current zones.
Mr Breschkin objected to applying the Township Zone as well as the intention of Council to
sell the land. The latter part of this objection is addressed in Chapter 5. In his written
submission, Mr Lawson objected to the drafting of the DPO, but supported the application
of the Township Zone, stating it was the obvious choice.
In evidence, Mr Czarny of Hansen Partnership provided expert witness evidence for
Council to reinforce that the Township Zone is an appropriate statutory tool in the context
of the Hurstbridge Township.
He noted that the zone’s purpose allows for a flexible range of uses in small towns and it
provides a basis (via permit) for different and more intensive forms of housing as intended
on the land. Mr Czarny did not perceive any conflict between the purpose and intention of
the Township Zone and the anticipated intergenerational housing model. He added:
The proposed Township Zone also makes reference through permit requirements to
Clauses 55 and 56, which are my opinion satisfactory amenity and character tests both
within and at the interface of the site. Putting aside the hypothetical design response – it is
entirely appropriate for other development propositions to be measured against key site
planning and interface management parameters.
Council outlined that the appropriate application of the suite of residential zones available
in the Victoria Planning Provisions is discussed within the State Government’s Practice
Note 78 – Applying the Residential Zones, December 2013. An extract from Table 1 from
the Practice Note is included below and sets out the zone, its purpose, likely application
and principles to be considered.
Residential Zone
Principles in
applying zones
Zone
Purpose
Likely application
Principles can be
deduced from the
purposes of the
zones (and should
be considered
together)*
Mixed Use Zone
Enables new
housing and jobs
growth in mixed use
areas
In areas with a mix 
of residential and
non-residential
development. In
local neighbourhood
centres undergoing
renewal and around
Areas
encouraging a
range of
residential,
commercial,
industrial and
other uses
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Residential Zone
Residential Growth
Zone
General Residential
Zone
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Principles in
applying zones
Enables new
housing growth and
diversity in
appropriate
locations
Respects and
preserves
neighbourhood
character while
allowing moderate
housing growth and
diversity
train stations, where 
appropriate.
Areas to provide
for housing at
higher densities
and higher built
form that
responds to the
existing or
preferred
neighbourhood
character
In appropriate

locations near
activities areas,
town centres, train
stations and other
areas suitable for
increased housing 
activity such as
smaller strategic
redevelopment sites
Locations offering
good access to
services,
transport and
other
infrastructure

Areas where
there is mature
market demand
for higher density
outcomes

Areas with a
diversity of
housing stock,
diversity of lot
sizes and a more
varied
neighbourhood
character

Areas where
moderate housing
In most residential
areas where
moderate growth
and diversity of
housing that is
consistent with
existing
neighbourhood
character is to be
provided
Areas which
provide a
transition
between areas of
more intensive
use and
development and
areas of restricted
housing growth
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Residential Zone
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Principles in
applying zones
growth and
housing diversity
is encouraged
Neighbourhood
Residential Zone
Restricts housing
growth in areas
identified for urban
preservation
In areas where
single dwellings
prevail and change
is not identified,
such as areas of
recognised
neighbourhood
character, heritage
environmental or
landscape
significance

Areas with a
neighbourhood
character that is
sought to be
retained

Areas where
more than 80% of
lots currently
accommodate
detached
dwellings

Areas with
Neighbourhood
Character
Overlays

Residential areas
with Heritage
Overlays (such as
larger heritage
precincts, rather
than individually
recognised
heritage sites)

Areas of identified
environmental or
landscape
significance.

Areas which may
not have good
supporting
transport
infrastructure or
other
infrastructure,
facilities and
services and are
not likely to be
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Residential Zone
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Principles in
applying zones
improved in the
medium to longer
term
Township Zone
Low Density
Residential Zone
3.2
Provides for
In townships
residential and other
uses in small towns.
Enables modest
housing growth
Likely application
Enables low density
housing
On the fringe of
urban areas and
townships where
sewerage may not
be available

Areas in small
towns for
residential
development and
educational,
recreational,
religious,
community and a
limited range of
other nonresidential uses
to serve local
community needs

Areas with
Neighbourhood
Character
Overlays or
policies
Areas for low‐
density residential
development.
Discussion
The Township Zone was originally considered for the subject site as part of the
Hurstbridge Township Strategy adopted by Council in 2000. The Strategy work included
an analysis of all areas abutting the existing township identified a small number of sites
that may potentially be considered for residential development by rezoning to the
Township Zone. The former school site was identified as one of the suitable sites.
With regard to possible industrial or commercial uses applying to the subject site, the
Panel explained to Mr McKinnon that whilst these are Section 2 uses and subject to a
permit application, the Amendment had proposed a detailed DPO Schedule (discussed in
Chapter 4) with a particular intended land use outcome. If a different application were
made, say for a supermarket, Council would be in a position to assess it against the DPO
and public notification would occur with an opportunity to object. The Panel notes that
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
while industry is permitted by the Township Zone, an application was highly improbable for
this site.
The Panel agreed with Council’s submission as there was a clear strategic mandate set
out for the use of this zone dating back to 2000.
3.3
Conclusion
The Panel concludes that the Township Zone is appropriate for the subject site.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
4
Development Plan Overlay
4.1
The Issue
Panel Report
16 July 2015
A number of concerns were raised about the form and content of DPO7, its relationship
with the existing DDO5 and related issues of character, building form, loss of vegetation
and amenity.
Evidence and Submissions
Council submitted that DPO7 sets out the form and conditions for future use and
development that are required to be shown on a detailed development plan before a
permit can be granted to use or develop the land. DPO7 is accompanied by a proposed
reference document, entitled Lot 1 Graysharps Road Hurstbridge Neighbourhood and Site
Description and Urban Design Guidelines (Guidelines).
Ms Fowler, representing Council stated:
In particular, the DPO and associated reference document (Guidelines), contain a number
of objectives to be achieved relating to design and urban form and specific performance
based design requirements to be achieved relating to site layout and setbacks, orientation
and view lines, building height and form, building style and façade composition, roof style
and materials, colours and textures. The aim of these requirements is to ensure that any
proposed development is respectful of the village character of Hurstbridge and
incorporates key architectural characteristics of Hurstbridge.
Council noted that the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.12 of the Planning
Scheme identifies the key existing characteristics and preferred future character of the
Shire’s residential areas. It provides design guidance to ensure that development and,
where relevant, works respond to the preferred neighbourhood character of residential
areas.
Hurstbridge is identified in the Neighbourhood Character Policy and associated precinct
guideline brochure as Semi Bush. The guideline sets out a preferred future character
statement and specific design objectives and what constitutes a threat and should be
avoided.
It was submitted by Council that the subject site represents an opportunity to:
Integrate a residential development with the surrounding uses, public spaces, community
infrastructure and facilities.
It was argued by Council that DPO7 requires a site and building layout which locates
development within a landscape setting that will blend with the local environment and
natural landscape, in order to encourage a physical and perceptual extension of landscape
from the adjacent parklands into the site. The overlay also requires the provision of
setbacks to address the interface with surrounding land uses.
Concerns raised through a number of written submissions and at the Hearing included the
lack of consistency between DPO7 and DDO5 and the Hurstbridge design guidelines. A
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
number of submissions raised the issue of roof forms and building height and the concept
plan not being in keeping with Hurstbridge’s ‘Semi‐bush’ character. Many written
submissions raised the issue that design would be paramount in creating attractive,
environmentally sustainable and community sensitive functional development outcomes.
Lorna Smith submitted at the Hearing that even though we are told 23 submissions
supported the amendment, the vast majority wanted changes to the proposal, many to the
extent that they could not be counted as supporting the amendment. Ms Smith suggested
that 23 units was the right number that is needed in town for elderly residents. She was
against ‘grouping communities’ in a cluster and that with recent changes to Government
legislation, it is likely that people will be discouraged from downsizing, placing further
doubt on the aged care aspirations of Council’s vision.
Drafting
At the Hearing, Mr McKinnon argued that there was inconsistency between the DPO7 and
the existing DDO5 particularly in relation to building form, planting and landscape. He
submitted ‘general design requirements of the DPO7 therefore do not support the
identified elements that contribute to the character of the area, namely as specified in
DDO5, Bush Garden and semi bush character types …. The DDO5 refer to existing
landscape quality and tones include dense bushland setting which is in stark contrast to
the open spaces and transparent landscaping in the requirements of this proposal’.
In evidence, Mr Czarny accepted that there was existing vegetation on the land but did not
believe it warranted retention. When questioned by the Panel about the need for DPO7,
given that DDO5 already applied to the site, Mr Czarny replied that:
DDOs are specifically for design issues first and foremost. Council is also seeking a
distinct use outcome (intergenerational housing). The DPO7 will assist in bringing this
outcome to fruition.
The Panel queried the choice of overlay with Mr Czarny some design inconsistency or
overlap between DDO5 and the DPO7. Mr Czarny noted that the planning scheme is
designed for acceptable or appropriate standards and not exceptional. This site is both
sensitive and special hence a more rigorous regime, as outlined in the DPO is warranted.
It is a rare and considered opportunity.
Council submitted:
It is considered that use of DDO5 alone would not provide enough specific strategic
guidance for the site, and would not require the preparation of a plan that requires Council
endorsement before development could proceed. The preparation of a plan that aims to
achieve Council’s adopted vision for the site is critical to the success of the project.
Mr Czarny added:
Noting Council's ambition for a diverse format of integrated intergenerational housing on
this site (and the particular land use connections with the adjoining Hurstbridge
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Community Hub), I am not convinced that DDO5 (or a new site specific DDO) would
appropriately address the intended development outcome to an appropriate degree.
Ms Smith, Mr Breschkin, Mr McKinnon and Ms Fitzpatrick all raised issues at the Hearing
with regard to the likely development outcome in terms of character and fit.
Mr McKinnon suggested that the ‘DPO needs to be changed to an Incorporated Plan
Overlay’ (IPO). His reasons included that the Practice Note 23 states that an IPO should
normally be used for sites that are likely to affect third parties, and in particular drew
attention to the Hurstbridge Football and Netball club with regard to parking, reverse
amenity issues and their ability to expand. This was reinforced by written submissions from
the Hurstbridge Football and Netball Club and Ms Smith.
Ms Fowler submitted that consistent with the State Government Practice Note Applying the
Incorporated Plan Overlay and Development Plan Overlay January 2003, the DPO is the
appropriate tool to use when considering a large or significant development within single
ownership. The DPO can be used to specify the form and conditions for the detailed
development.
Guidelines and Character
Mr Czarny outlined that due to the constrained boundary of the Hurstbridge Township, the
area has a ‘dominant rural village character as espoused in Clause 22.12.’ He outlined that
the land is nominated as SB4 – Semi Bush precinct. In addition to those that presented
during the Hearing, a number of written submissions queried the supposed fit with the
Guidelines prepared with the amendment.
Density
Mr Czarny explained that the question of development density has been identified within
existing strategic documents with a particular reference to a development yield of between
40‐50 dwellings. As a large parcel (1.8ha), his submission outlined that the site
represented:
An opportunity within Hurstbridge to accommodate a medium density outcome of between
22‐27 dwellings per hectare. While this is significantly greater than that found in the
broader subdivision of Hurstbridge, it is in my opinion a reasonable expectation on a
‘strategic development site’ with favourable attributes.
At the Hearing, Anne Fitzpatrick submitted at the Hearing that the dwellings of the
proposed density and height will destroy this beautiful, tranquil area. Mr Breschkin
submitted that the density proposed by the Hansen Concept would be completely
inappropriate to Hurstbridge and contradictory to DDO5 and set a dangerous precedent.
Mr Czarny argued DPO7 and the Guidelines (November 2014) do not set any benchmarks
relating to development density, or prescribe the number of dwellings to be achieved. To
this end, he submitted that the proposed DPO offers the flexibility to achieve the intended
density or the possibility for an alternative yield, subject to particular design and
development details.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Scale and Height
Most submissions that objected raised concern on the proposed development scale and
heights, proposed in or around 9m in height, as set out in DPO7 Table 1. Ms Fitzpatrick
submitted that from her summary of submissions, 36 submitters all have housing, density
and height concerns.
Mr Czarny responded in evidence stating:
Given the profile of the site on flat land adjacent to the Diamond Creek, I have no concerns
with the prospect of potential buildings reaching the 9m height parameter. I consider a 3
storey form (broadly consistent with Clauses 55 or 56) to be one which reinforces the low
scaled character of Hurstbridge Township.
On broader inspection of Hurstbridge Mr Czarny argued that there is evidence of buildings
with high roof pitches set on slopes in a split‐level format with the ability to achieving
development of up to 3 storeys. He argued that the proposed outcome on the subject land
offered a similar design response.
4.2
Discussion
The Panel notes that Hansen Partnership prepared the Urban Design Guidelines and
wording to DPO7. Mr Czarny explained that whilst his firm had been engaged to do so, he
had not had a direct role in these matters. In this instance, the Panel is comfortable with
the declaration and no submissions raised this as an issue.
As with the Township Zone discussion, a number of submissions argued that the DPO
could allow for all types of uses to occur on the site. This is incorrect. DPOs can and often
do allow permits to be granted for buildings and works that do not accord with the
approved development plan. Council has placed safeguards for this contained under its
Section 3.0 – Conditions and requirements for permits which states:
A permit may be granted for buildings and works that do not accord with the approved
Development Plan or any of the requirements of this schedule provided the design
objectives and outcomes are satisfied. An application that varies from the approved
Development Plan or design guidelines must demonstrate how the design continues to
meet the design objectives and built form outcomes.
A DPO prevents the granting of a permit under the applicable zone before a plan has been
approved. The purpose of this provision is to restrain use and development of the land
until a plan has been prepared and to ensure that future use and development of the land
is carried out in accordance with that plan. The plan details the form and conditions that
must be met by future use and development of the land.
Concerns regarding height, scale and density were appropriately addressed by the expert
evidence statement of Mr Czarny. The Panel agreed with Mr Czarny’s assertion any future
buildings will sit well within the canopy line of surrounding vegetation and will be diminutive
in the context of the Hurstbridge Gym (equivalent to 3‐4 storeys) to the east.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
When questioned regarding the use of the term height or storeys (that is, using one
measure or the other) Mr Czarny believed that in this instance, flexibility was required to
enable a more site response outcome. His response was in this case, providing both was
an ‘each way bet’, in that given the aspiration of Council for the use (intergenerational
housing) the design response may well include double storey buildings with visually
interesting roof forms.
Whilst Council conceded some of the design requirements contained within DPO7
replicate those within DDO5, it argued that DPO7 takes these a step further to specify
details that are particular to the location and conditions of the subject site and its
interrelationship with surrounding land uses.
4.3
Conclusions
The Panel generally accepts the detailed nature of DPO7 in this particular case is
warranted, to ensure Council achieves its vision for intergenerational housing on the site. It
was concerned with the duplications, form and verbose nature of the schedule, and urges
Council substantially ‘trims’ its objectives. The Panel would not like to see innovative
measures be thwarted for design outcomes on the site due to an onerous schedule.
In the view of the Panel the DPO7 provisions are far too detailed. Many of the items
numbered in 2.0 are replicated in the table at 4.0. The sequencing of headings does not
flow with typical DPO Schedules and the language with regard to Decision Guidelines,
References and the like needs to be consistent. Numbering errors also need to be
corrected (For example sub‐headings number 1 – 4 then repeat 3 and 4 rather than 5 and
6).
The Panel has not sought to re‐write the schedule given the level of detail that the Council
has placed into achieving its preferred outcome for the site. However it cautions Council
on being too rigid in its requirements that may inadvertently preclude prospective
purchasers and ability to appropriately develop the site. A thorough review and edit is
recommended to delete duplication with DDO5 and competing objectives before the
Amendment is finalised.
A key point in the Panel’s view, reinforced in evidence by Mr Czarny was that it is very
important to recognise that the project has been identified as a potential development site
in support of housing diversity and 'ageing in place' for over a decade – as outlined in the
earlier Hurstbridge Township Strategy (2000) and subsequent Hurstbridge Concept Plan
(2010). Council’s proactive role in purchasing the site from the DEECD means that it can
carefully manage and monitor development outcomes so that they are generally
compatible with the strategic ambitions for the Township.
Whilst sympathetic to the concerns voiced by submitters regarding character and density,
these will only be truly explored once a viable design response to the site has been
developed. Council’s intention for the site to be developed has been apparent and
embedded in policy since at least 2001, and more recently heralded in the 2010 Concept
Plan.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
4.4
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Recommendations
The Panel recommends:
1. Amend Development Plan 1. Overlay Schedule 7 to remove duplication with the
existing Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5. Correct heading numbers,
apply language consistency and rationalise the number of development plan design
objectives.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
5
Other matters and submissions
5.1
Key issues
Panel Report
16 July 2015
This chapter deals with the issues that were raised during the hearing and from written
submissions.
The need for Intergenerational Housing
A number of submitters queried Council’s ambitions on the need for aged care, disabled
care, community or intergenerational housing. Council tabled a report prepared by
Swinburne Institute of Social Research entitled Intergenerational housing opportunities for
the township of Hurstbridge (2012). Council did not call an expert witness on this however
it provided useful background for Council’s approach. It pre‐supposes that the site will be
developed as a resource for older people living in Hurstbridge and surrounding areas.
Ross Coverdale, CEO of Araluen provided a supporting submission to the Panel of the
need for the form of housing envisaged by the Amendment. Araluen provides permanent
and supported beds in the region. Mr Coverdale spoke of the need for asset based
community development such as what Council is trying to achieve. With policy triggers and
funding via the National Disability Insurance Scheme forward planning for such facilities as
Council had contemplated was critical. Mr Coverdale invited a parent of a disabled adult to
speak on the challenges of aging carers and the opportunities for local care that the
Amendment site presented. Mr Coverdale commended the Council initiative stating it had:
Potential to develop a community asset that embraces and showcases why Hurstbridge is
a great place to live.
Mr McKinnon tabled an additional submission from Dr Sonja Pedell, an objector to the
Amendment. Dr Pedell outlined the proposed concept as flawed, given the high densities
proposed and that the proposed housing would not ably cater for dementia patients and
age‐related blindness. Dr Pedell also outlined that the aging population for Hurstbridge
(above age 65) won’t increase to a level warranting any such development, and thirdly that
empty housing in Hurstbridge would be better suited to being used first.
Affordable Housing
Ms Smith argued that children were remaining in the family home a lot longer as housing
prices continue to climb and that this was placing pressure on home owners to retain their
homes a lot longer. She argued that Hurstbridge has arguably the most affordable housing
stock in Nillumbik. Many other submissions questioned the Council’s aspiration of
achieving affordable housing as a part of the development. Dr Pedell questioned how
Council can ensure that on the one hand housing is attractive and suitable for
intergenerational living, but still be affordable.
Dr Pedell argued that without having processes in place this is not only about housing, but
considering the implications for the whole community and future generations. Council
tabled its Draft Evaluation Criteria and outlined:
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Because of the performance based assessment framework, the successful purchaser
need not be the respondent that offers the highest price. It is proposed to develop a
separate ‘performance evaluation matrix’ which provides appropriate weighting and
financial incentives to reward innovative development proposals which maximise ESD,
accessibility, affordability features, or make contributions to the upgrade of the surrounding
public spaces and/or infrastructure.
Environmental issues
Many submissions queried possible environmental issues that may arise by rezoning the
subject site for development. A feature of the site is its relationship to the Diamond Creek
corridor and a suite of passive and active recreational facilities that line its eastern bank, in
particular the recently established wetlands to the south in tandem with recreational
walking trails. The Ben Frilay Oval and Hurstbridge Bowling Club accord successfully with
the recently opened Hurstbridge Community Hub.
Mr McKinnon raised concerns of stormwater runoff, increase of sediment and loss of
permeability to the existing vegetation.
Ms Fitzpatrick submitted that the land sat within the ESO1 Corridor to ‘support a range of
species and has a connecting and residual function for wildlife’. She raised the Hurstbridge
Concept Plan (2010) and money raised by Council grants and from Friends of Diamond
Creek and warned that ‘detrimental impacts could potentially not only destroy this diverse
sensitive habitat but also affect the whole corridor’. Mr Breschkin reinforced this by arguing
that the Diamond Creek is currently under threat and warrants protecting. He raised the
issue that Council also intends to remove the ESO from this site.
Mr Czarny argued that ‘as a residential development parcel, I consider the site to be
complimentary in terms of its potential aspect and attributes’. He noted in evidence that the
ESO is currently under review with a recommendation for removal as part of a separate
planning scheme Amendment.
Fire / Neighbourhood Safer Place
A number of submissions raised the issue that the site was a fire risk. Council advised that
the CFA was not a formal referral authority in this instance as the site was not subject to a
Bushfire Management Overlay. Council noted that it had asked for a response and at the
time of writing this report the CFA had not responded.
In particular, Mr Breschkin questioned the sensibility of putting elderly and disabled
residents in an area of high bushfire threat. Mr McKinnon queried the future use of the
basketball stadium / community hub as a Neighbourhood Safer Place with potential new
development abutting the site. With regard to access, Mr Czarny noted that the site was
viably accessible through Graysharps Road to the north, which is connected to Anzac
Avenue across the railway line.
Mr Czarny submitted that subject to the successful management of flooding under the
LSIO, bushfire and community safety parameters (as defined by the CFA) and associated
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
interface management matters, he considered the former Secondary College site to be
well placed to accommodate for moderate housing growth within the Hurstbridge
Township. He noted that the site provides an excellent opportunity for a well‐designed
urban interface with the Creek corridor and associated open spaces, noting the potential
for surveillance and improved activation of these assets.
Council acquisition and sale of land process
A number of submissions queried the sale, transaction process including the price,
recouping costs, role of Council and conflicts on the purchase of the site.
5.2
Discussion
On inspection of the site and from Council’s submission, the Panel notes the site is
serviceable and readily available for development with relatively limited constraints (other
than those imposed by the Nillumbik Planning Scheme in relation to design and character).
The site is broadly flat and during the Hearing Council submitted it does not contain
significant vegetation assets.
Whilst a non‐response from the CFA was disappointing, the Panel also notes that the land
is not within a Bushfire Management Overlay and agreed with Mr Czarny that at the design
stage appropriate measures could be designed and catered for.
With regard to removing the ESO, Council advised that it was being considered as part of
a broader Amendment into the future in conjunction with Melbourne Water and other
authorities. Ms Fowler reiterated that the subject site was highly disturbed as a former high
school and its proximity to the creek is still regarded as significant.
In the absence of a Bushfire Management Overlay the Panel can only assume through the
design controls and permit process that follows that the CFA will be more active in
responding to any designs put forward.
As Council had indicated in its submission, the ESO is proposed to be removed in an
upcoming amendment process. This affirmed to the Panel that matters of environmental
significance had been investigated and confirmed as not of a major concern to this site.
The Panel agreed in part with Dr Pedell and other’s concerns on the challenges
confronting Council on the affordable housing ambition. It notes this is not enshrined in the
DPO and will be up to the Council and its tender process where it has stated that the land
will not necessarily be sold to the highest bidder, but one that meets their detailed
evaluation criteria for sale. Given Council’s response to this in its written submission, there
is clearly an intention to deliver a form of affordable housing.
On the matter of the land acquisition and sale process, this was not a matter for the Panel
to consider and this was communicated to submitters and both the Directions Hearing and
the Hearing itself.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
5.3
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the issues raised have been adequately
addressed by Council in its submission.
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Appendix A: List of submitters
Number
Submitter
1
David Allen
2
Aslam Mauthoor
3
David Venema
4
Paul Northey
5
Narelle Campbell
6
Ian Webster
7
VicRoads
8
DEPI
9
Katrina Ballie
10
Sandra Nicolaides
11
Katherine Horton
12
William Wootton
13
Sue Penninger
14
Olwyn Devlin
15
Sharon Turner
16
Jill Holmes
17
Dr Geoff Mosley
18
Merja Hanlon
19
Janice Crosswhite
20
Dr Colin Duggleby
21
Ruth O’Dowd
22
Andrew Lodi
23
Daryl Brooke
24
Wendy Moore
25
Liz Mildenhall
26
Nanette Oates
27
Anne Fitzpatrick
28
Donald Vary
29
John Lawson
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Panel Report
16 July 2015
Number
Submitter
30
Sabi Buehler
31
Kerry Wailes
32
Diamond Valley EcoVillage Inc
33
Scott Breschkin
34
Ross Coverdale on behalf of Araluen
35
Hurstbridge Traders Association
36
Clare Dunlop
37
Kirsten and John Dickinson
38
Patsy Cullinan
39
Craig Usher
40
John and Elaine Lane
41
Ian Bishop
42
Dr Sonja Pedell
43
Pam Hayes of behalf of fifteen residents
44
Nillumbik Shire Positive Ageing Reference Group
45
Mary Costello
46
Mahala Ebery
47
Moya Mauthoor
48
Steven Katsineris
49
Donna Kilgour
50
Liz Franzmann
51
Melbourne Water
52
Hurstbridge Football and Netball Club and Hurstbridge Cricket Club
53
Catherine Lance
54
Wayne Van Tenac
55
Rebecca Landy
56
Laurie Paine
57
Friends of Nillumbik
58
David McKinnon
59
Deanna Stephens
Nillumbik Planning Scheme Amendment C85
Number
Submitter
60
Lorna Smith
61
Mary Robertson
62
Jennifer Graham
63
Kate Mildenhall
64
Bill Penrose
65
Janine Molinaro
66
Bill Hall
67
Colleen and Graham Hackett
68
Kerry White
Panel Report
16 July 2015