RE: PRECINCT STRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDELINES CONSULTATION DRAFT OCTOBER 2008

Transcription

1 Our File: IN2008/25160 [HC07/492] Enquiries: David Keenan Telephone: Mr Peter Seamer Chief Executive Officer Growth Areas Authority Level 6, 35 Spring Street MELBOURNE 3000 Dear Mr Seamer RE: PRECINCT STRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDELINES CONSULTATION DRAFT OCTOBER 2008 The Precinct Structure Planing Guidelines represent a significant milestone in the planning of Melbourne s Growth Areas following the introduction of the Urban Growth Zone. Guidance from the Growth Areas Authority on the expected form and content of Precinct Structure Plans is welcomed. The draft Guidelines are very comprehensive and reflect a great deal of work and consideration. In Council s view the guidelines could be improved by allowing a greater level of flexibility and adaptability within Precinct Structure Plans both between Growth Areas and throughout the life of a plan. As the body primarily responsible for the implementation of Precinct Structure Plans, Council is concerned that the guidelines will prescribe an outcome that is insufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances. The capacity to respond to issues such as changes in government standards or opportunities around the funding and timing of infrastructure is important to Council and should be a key element of any structure plan. The guidelines will also have a significant impact on the service delivery and capital works program of Council, and it is difficult to assess the full impact of the guidelines until they have been applied on the development of real life Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs). As such there should be scope to further review the guidelines in twelve months time to assess their adequacy and usefulness in developing workable PSPs. General Comments Council is concerned at the level of detail required in a PSP as outlined in the guidelines. The guidelines appear to have moved beyond providing guidance on the required outputs and issues to be addressed, to prescription or suggestion for specific design outcomes in the preparation of a PSP. It is submitted that this approach is not warranted and requires a level of design to be resolved that is beyond the scale of a plan intended to deal with communities of 10 30,000 people. In this context, it is considered that the guidelines fail to achieve the objective of providing a simple planning tool to guide the development of the new Greenfield communities.

2 2 The level of detail prescribed within the guidelines will also remove the flexibility Council currently has in negotiating outcomes with developers and service providers. This will also lead to outcomes that will set Council s priorities and approach to service delivery despite changing standards and community expectations over the life of a plan. It is vital that the guidelines only set out a suggested approach to the development of a PSP and do not prescribe specific outcomes. In many areas the standards seek to prescribe a design outcome or the provision of infrastructure at a level or in a manner contrary to Council s current approach. Examples include the use of water sensitive urban design, road design, community infrastructure and open space. The Guidelines also presume (or require) Council to have a high degree of planning in place on the infrastructure and services it intends to provide in the precinct plan areas. The inclusion of standards to this level of detail not only stifles innovation and flexibility, they fail to accommodate different Council priorities, financial circumstances and approaches to the design and delivery of infrastructure. To overcome these issues, it is recommended that Part 2 of the Guidelines be limited to providing direction on the outputs and design response components of each stage of the plan. The discussion on relevant standards and planning permit considerations should be removed and developed as separate technical notes or similar so that they do not become standards used to assess the PSP. Process It is noted that in all cases the implementation of the PSP will be the responsibility of Council through the Planning Permit Process. Significantly, the process set up by the UGZ and PSPs would remove third party appeal rights for planning permits. This means that the only opportunity for interested parties, including the community to comment on the future urban areas would be through the PSP process or formally through the planning scheme amendment process. However, the Guidelines do not provide any detail on what community consultation process is proposed as part of the PSP. Further attention needs to be given within the guidelines to genuinely engage the community on the content of the plan outside of the relatively inaccessible planning scheme amendment process. It may be that a separate community consultation process is required to further explain to the community and landholders how the development of a PSP may impact upon individuals in the longer term. Perhaps an informal process can be developed in a similar manner to the Priority Development Panel process that will engage stakeholders in a different manner. The Guidelines only outline a process where the PSP is prepared and approved by the GAA. Councils have the opportunity to prepare a PSP but the Guidelines do not outline a process for this scenario. The Guidelines need to include a stage to formalise the decision on who will lead preparation of the PSP. It should not be presumed that the GAA will lead each PSP and the guidelines should give equal attention to both processes and the role of the GAA and Council in each. This should include how the

3 3 costs will be allocated, not just through the utilization of consultants, but also through Council officer time. Employment Areas Whilst the employment guidelines as detailed within the Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines provide some direction in relation to how employment generation can occur in growth areas, Council is of the view that they require further refinement. The concept that a 2,000 square metre office or serviced office development could exist within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC) is considered ambitious. It is more likely that serviced offices or business incubators or accelerators will be located in major activity centres or principal activity centres. It is expected that a NAC s floorspace will consist of a supermarket of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 square metres with accompanying speciality shops and perhaps be located in close proximity to child care or medical facilities. It is unlikely that an additional 2,000 square metres of office space located in the NAC would be viable. Particularly in relation to the rents that would be sought, the impact of car parking and the proximity to retail businesses. It may be more appropriate to consider how residential developments can be serviced by higher levels of information technology infrastructure such as fibre to the node and fibre to the door. These improvements would allow a high level of connectivity for people working from home and allow them to expand their business into serviced offices within a major activity centre or a principal activity centre. This issue is referred to later in the submission. If serviced offices are to be considered, one needs to look at how these serviced offices or business accelerators are provided in other areas of the State or throughout Australia. Some of the best examples exist in New South Wales with the SSAGD development in the Sutherland Shire being probably the best example. It is important to understand the principles behind developing these facilities. Anchor tenants can be either a State or Federal government agency, with supplementary tenancies installed around them that lease only for a limited period of time before they graduate out of the facility. It is important that those using the facility are well serviced by business support mentoring as well as significant administrative support. It is suggested that these facilities be established on the edge of growth corridors and within large scale industrial or new business parks. Council notes that there are different types of business incubators or accelerators. For example, there may be information technology based or accountancy based incubators or accelerators and incubators that exist to create factoryettes for small businesses. Council is of the view that developers should supply an appropriate sized piece of land for the development of incubators or accelerators for small industrial businesses like panel beating, lawn mower repairs, motor repairs, IT and computer repairs. The most appropriate location for these facilities is within the new business or industrial estates. This allows people to undertake their business for a period of time and then graduate onto larger sizes of industrial or commercial subdivisions.

4 4 Council suggests that this land could be supplied through a developer contribution as part of the PSP process or the initial subdivision. Integral to the success of business incubators is the presence of a coordinator, whether they are employed by local, state or federal government appears to be irrelevant. In relation to the Neighbourhood Activity Centres, Council believes that it is important that each Centre has a strong and resilient retail component. Council believes there is a role for place managers in looking after at least two or three centres to ensure high levels of amenity and community engagement at each of the sites. This would be similar to a previous Street Life Program and allow for more small businesses to get networked in the area or home based businesses better promote their services within a vibrant centre. Council still considers that there are many opportunities for the further implementation of Melbourne This would be through the relocation or active encouragement of industries or commercial offices out of the inner areas of metropolitan Melbourne into the growth areas. This would create more employment opportunities for white and blue collar workers. If more businesses are to relocate from the inner areas out to the growth areas, there is a need to better promote the growth areas and create flexible planning environments in which they can establish and flourish. Within the guidelines, there is reference to State and Regional Economic Development Strategies. Hume City Council notes that there are no economic development strategies that are relevant or refer to the interface or growth areas. Council has through the Interface Councils forum, pursued this option but has received no confirmation that any sort of policy will be developed. With the absence of strong policy in this area, there is the danger that the type of development that will occur in the Growth Areas will be ad hoc and opportunistic. Council believes that there is a role for the GAA to advocate for the development of an Interface Economic Development Strategy that will establish a framework that attracts and stimulates appropriate development to the most logical and suitably serviced locations. In relation to other opportunities, it is imperative that an infrastructure plan be properly developed. This infrastructure plan should outline how, when and where infrastructure will be funded and installed over what period of time. This is vital if employment generating investors are to consider establishing in the growth areas. Infrastructure and Contributions The final stages of the PSP process deal with Infrastructure delivery. The guidelines propose this be addressed through the preparation of a Precinct Infrastructure Plan (PIP) and a Development Contributions Plan (DCP). This aspect will, for the first time, document the State Government s infrastructure intentions with respect to roads, public transport and schools required to support a development. It should be noted however that the PIP, whilst approved by the Minister for Planning, will not be binding on the state agencies responsible for providing the infrastructure and will merely inform their own budgeting process via a Memorandum of Understanding or similar. This is a totally inadequate response if the objective of ensuring the provision of the necessary infrastructure to support a new community is to be met. It is inequitable that the PSP process seeks to require and commit Council to the

5 5 provision of infrastructure in a timely manner without a similar commitment by State Government agencies. These agencies must play a vital and timely role in the development of sustainable and resilient communities. The expectation of the PIP is to fully identify the range of local infrastructure normally provided by Council. This will require Council to commit early to the level of infrastructure, timing expectations and method of provision without regard to Council s future budgets and municipal wide priorities. It is considered this situation will be further exacerbated if the proposed PSP standards are reflected in the plan. The Guidelines also requires that a DCP be prepared in conjunction with the PSP. This will require Council to make early decisions and commitments to the type and amount of infrastructure to be provided across the PSP areas. The impact of this requirement is unclear and will depend on what standards remain within the guidelines and the control Council has on its preparation. Utilities and Energy The outputs and design response for Utilities and Energy could be expanded to seek to improve the type of infrastructure provided to new communities over and above existing standards. Particular consideration should be given to the provision of optic fibre to new subdivisions. There is a key role for the GAA in coordinating the provision of this type of infrastructure which will increasingly be integral to the development of employment opportunities. Biodiversity The PSP must articulate which agency or department is to be responsible for management of conservation areas identified in the proposed conservation management plan. It should not be assumed that Councils will continue to assume responsibility for the management of these spaces without appropriate resources. In the past, Council has received a less than enthusiastic response from the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) representatives when asked to consider ownership or management of specific sites. Council would also make the observation that the Bush Broker scheme has not been highly successful in dealing with the longer term management of offset sites. There is a need to better define the roles and responsibilities of the various parties in relation to longer term biodiversity management. There is also a need to involve other agencies, such as Parks Victoria, to be involved in the development of planning for Regional Parks. Community Facilities Council has concerns with a number of the relevant standards, permit considerations and key principles outlined in Element 3 (Community Facilities) of the Guidelines. As stated earlier, the Guidelines should only deal with the key outputs and design response. The remaining content of this section including the relevant standard, permit considerations, Figure 8 Opportunities Matrix and the integrated community precinct example should perhaps be included within a separate technical document or similar.

6 Integrated community facilities network 6 There is no acknowledgement of Local Government s statutory responsibility as outlined in the Local Government Act. The Planning Hierarchy (Section 2) clearly establishes the land use planning framework however other sections of the Guidelines go beyond the land use planning domain that make these responsibilities relevant. It is suggested that the Precinct Structure Guidelines be limited to the Land Use planning domain or the Local Government Act be acknowledged and the Guidelines be amended to reflect the Local Government roles of the planning authority, services provider, etc. It is appropriate that a community facilities network plan be established for the precinct. However, the Guidelines require too much detail at this stage in the planning process. For example services provided within proposed facilities may have multiple catchments and changing demographic profiles. Furthermore, making timeframe commitments for the provision of buildings well in advance of their construction is considered inappropriate as service delivery requirements are influenced by many external change factors such as demographics, development growth rates and financial implications. Council is of the view that the key to the delivery of accessible, integrated and adaptable community infrastructure (Section 3) is to ensure that at the land use planning stage, sufficient land is allocated to meet anticipated communities needs. The allocation of land provides the flexibility for a community to evolve and determine infrastructure needs over time. Integrated facilities design Whilst it is appropriate to develop a concept for community facilities be they schools, early years hub or community centre hubs, it is important to acknowledge that service planning and models of delivery need to drive facility design. Buildings are the servants of programs and activities. The Guidelines are too prescriptive in expecting a service delivery statement for a service that is some ten years away from construction. Open space Again the Guidelines provide too much detail and the information in the relevant standards, including the matrix and indicative precinct, should be incorporated into a separate document. Integrated Open Space Network The Guidelines call for the development of a concept plan for active open space areas. This detail is considered unnecessary and should be outside the scope of the PSP. Such a plan is normally prepared much later in the process and it is not clear what purpose it would serve in the development of the PSP. Moreover, it is highly likely that any concept plan would be obsolete well before the open space area is actually developed. The Guidelines currently give little attention to the inclusion of walking and cycling as transport options, particularly in relation to access to employment. The guidelines should reinforce the potential of cycling as a viable alternative commuter transport option in the development of new areas.

7 7 Development Efficiency Appraisal It is important that a PSP address its future monitoring and review. This aspect of the Guidelines is supported. The Development Efficiency Appraisal component does not appear to add any value to the process and appears to be more of a GAA assessment tool than guidance for the preparation of a PSP. There is little detail on who would do the appraisal and there would be little value in such an appraisal being undertaken by the same body that has prepared the PSP. There are also no criteria or benchmarking outlined within the proposed Key Performance Measures to achieve the stated aim of checking that the PSP is financially and operationally realistic. Finally, Part 3 of the Guidelines provides useful information but should not form part of the Guidelines themselves. This information does not sit comfortably within a document used to guide and assess the development of a document that will be incorporated into planning schemes. Again there seems to be a strong case for the development of a series of technical notes or practice notes to support the Precinct Structure Planning process more generally. The existing VPP practice note series is a useful example on how this may be achieved. Connectivity The guidelines emphasize the need to create employment opportunities within the home environment, yet there is no comment is relation to fibre to the node or fibre to the home, to substitute the installation of copper wire. Unless adequate levels of telecommunication infrastructure are mandated within the growth areas, it is unlikely that these objectives will be achieved. It is also unlikely that acceptable levels of connectivity will be achieved through the upgrading of existing exchanges, as many of these exchanges are located in remote proximity to the growth areas, especially those exchanges within the special investigation areas. Advice needs to be received either from the Growth Area Authority (perhaps the Infrastructure Working Group) or other bodies to ascertain whether fibre is the preferred option for the servicing of the new growth. It has previously argued that wireless or satellite technology may be viable solutions. Infrastructure Funding Models Whilst the release of Melbourne@5million has provided some insight to Council as to how community and recreational infrastructure may be funded into the future, the linking of local government and State government funding commitments for future significant infrastructure is required. There is a demonstrated need to establish a higher level of consistency in decision making and guarantee the timely delivery of infrastructure that will meet the needs of new communities, rather than making them long drawn out processes, often influenced by factors other than planning. Council supports the general principle of co-location of specific facilities in particular circumstances however, buildings that have been identified, such as Performing Arts Centres and Leisure Centres, require significant initial capital investment and local government authorities to fund the recurrent operational costs. The operational costs are invariably a loss in the order of $700 $900k per annum. Council would welcome an investigation or review as to how new funding models can be developed that would allow local government

8 8 authorities to reduce losses or perhaps break even with regard to operational costs. It is assumed that local governments will make an initial capital contribution toward the construction of the new infrastructure. However the level of funding from State and Federal governments should be examined closely. The recent Inquiry into a New Regional Development Funding Program Draft Report, by the Federal Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has made comments that levels of funding need to be more realistic from all partners and that $ for $ contributions need to be revisited, with a greater proportion to be obtained from State and Federal Governments. Car parking The draft Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines put forward some sound principles in relation to the establishment of new neighbourhood, major and principal activities centres, especially with regard to how residents will travel to them. Clearly there is a push to have more residents utilise complex and accessible public transport networks, rather than private transport. It is suggested that through the implementation of the Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines there is an opportunity to review the car parking ratios and how they may apply to new retail areas. Vibrant Retail Centres The Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines make extensive comment about the vibrancy of shopping areas being achieved through the successful operation of detached single shopfronts. Whilst Council supports this intent, it is unsure how it will be achieved, given the ownership patterns that tend to prevail in the neighbourhood, major and principal activity centres. Council also sees this as a difficult objective given the stock standard approach to retail planning, which relies upon traditional models of retailing. (i.e. a Coles, surrounded by a Baker s Delight and a Subway, with a fast food outlet on the corner). Peer Review of Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines There is an opportunity to develop a peer review process that would allow local governments officers to become involved in reviewing or critiquing precinct structure plans that are being developed in other areas. This would add value to the skills of employees and maintain the currency of information skills. Council officers would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with you in more detail prior to the finalisation of the guidelines. Yours faithfully DOMENIC ISOLA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER