NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOR VICTORIA
CONSULTATION DRAFT
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE VICTORIAN PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
APRIL 2009
ME_79207282_1 (W2003)
2
1.
This submission is made on behalf of the Victorian Planning and Environmental law
Association (VPELA) a leading industry body in planning and environment in Victoria.
This submission responds to the consultation draft entitled "New Residential Zones for
Victoria" released by the Government in February 2009. This submission should be read
in conjunction with the submission made by VPELA to the discussion paper on the same
issue released by the Government in February 2008. A copy of that submission is attached.
2.
In principle, VPELA supports the concept of identifying areas and designating them for
particular outcomes. Such a concept provides greater certainty for all stakeholders.
However VPELA submits that in order to succeed, any changes to the present controls
must be properly justified, consistent with the philosophy of the VPPs, be capable of
implementing the intended outcome and ensure that their implementation is properly
resourced. Absent these matters, VPELA is concerned that any changes will simply be
viewed as window dressing.
3.
VPELA notes that there remains limited justification for the introduction of the new zones.
As previously noted, there is a lack of discussion about why the current suite of VPP
controls are insufficient to deliver the desired outcome. VPELA notes that on page 7 of
the consultation draft, there is an attempt to align the proposed zones with existing
residential zones. What is lacking is a discussion about why the proposed zones will
deliver to stakeholders what the current zones apparently do not.
4.
VPELA is concerned that unless a proper justification for the new zones is articulated
then the new zones will not be properly embraced by relevant stakeholders and the
implementation of their objectives will be undermined.
5.
VPELA repeats its previous concerns that the ability for Councils to vary the standard
zone requirements through the use of schedules may be a regressive step and lead to an
outcome which the VPPs were specifically introduced to avoid, namely a plethora of
different residential controls operating throughout Victoria. VPELA submits that many of
the matters identified to be addressed in the schedules to the new zones could more
appropriately be addressed through the use of overlays.
6.
In terms of the specific zones VPELA notes that the proposed Substantial Change Zone
purports to replicate the provisions of the Residential 2 zone. However, the proposed zone
would no longer contain the automatic exemption from public notice and third party
ME_79207282_1 (W2003)
3
appeal rights. VPELA considers that such a step is regressive, it is common in zones
where higher density development is encouraged for such exemptions to apply.
7.
The proposed zone contains a maximum building height of 13.5 metres (4 storeys) unless
the schedule specifies otherwise. VPELA questions why, in an area specifically
encouraging housing at higher densities, it is necessary to impose a default height
restriction.
8.
VPELA also notes that the issue of car parking has not been addressed. VPELA repeats
its concerns that the objectives of the proposed zone as a 'go go' area could be frustrated
by arguments about car parking and the like.
9.
In its submission to the discussion paper VPELA raised the possibility of the table of uses
to the Substantial Change Zone being structured so as to encourage particular use and
development outcomes. This opportunity has not been taken up.
10.
VPELA's final point in relation to the Substantial Change Zone relates to its
implementation. As previously noted the consultation draft states that the Substantial
Change Zone is intended to replace the Residential 2 zone. It is generally acknowledged
that the Residential 2 zone is one of the least used zones in the VPPs. VPELA has not
seen any discussion about how the Substantial Change Zone will succeed where the
Residential 2 zone has not.
11.
Further, VPELA submits that it is not sufficient to presume that removing the exemption
from third party notice and appeal rights will necessarily result in an uptake of the use of
this zone. The implementation of the Substantial Change Zone potentially requires both a
political and resource commitment from local government. VPELA has concerns about
whether this will be achieved, certainly there appears no suggestion of state government
support in either of these areas.
12.
In relation to the Incremental Change Zone, which purports to replace the current
Residential 1 zone, VPELA questions the proposal to allow the schedule to stipulate a
maximum building height below 9 metres (3 storeys). VPELA submits that if the
particular attributes of a location warrant a development outcome below 9 metres then
this could be achieved through the use of an appropriate design and Development Overlay
which addresses a specific outcome. Further, the fact that the zone contemplates a
building of up to 9 metres does not necessarily mean that such a built form outcome will
always be appropriate, each application must be considered in its specific context.
ME_79207282_1 (W2003)
4
However imposing a height restriction below 9 metres removes the ability to even
consider such an outcome.
13.
VPELA's final comments on the draft relates to its implementation. This was a matter
identified in VPELA's submission on the discussion paper. VPELA repeats its concerns
that without proper state government leadership there may be a tendency for local
government to avoid the Substantial Change Zones and focus solely on introducing
Limited Change Zones. Such an outcome would frustrate the objectives of this review.
VICTORIAN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION
6th April 2009
ME_79207282_1 (W2003)