Activity Centres & Structure Plans
State governments of all persuasions have encouraged and endorsed councils’ implementation of structure plans. Here’s why:
Structure plans provide the foundation for activity centres change by defining the preferred direction of future growth and articulating how this change will be managed.
Structure plans will guide the major changes to land use, built form and public spaces that together can achieve economic, social and environmental objectives for the centre. To encourage development within centres, government policy encourages local governments to review the purpose and function of individual centres and to revise local planning policies through a program of structure planning for each of their activity centres. (Source: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/urban-design-and-development/Activity-Centres/structureplanning)
Stonnington goes further –
A structure plan is a planning tool that sets out a vision for the future development of a place. It establishes a planning and management framework to guide development and land-use change and aims to achieve environmental, social and economic objectives.
A structure plan takes into account all of the issues affecting an area, including its buildings and spaces, land uses, activities and transport. An essential aspect of the structure planning process is feedback from the community on how the area should evolve. An important phase of the structure planning process requires consultation with the community, local residents, traders and the development industry to determine the best outcome for the centre. Each structure plan will require consultation. (Source: http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/Vision/Strategic-Planning/Structure-Plans-and-Urban-Frameworks/Structure-Plans-and-Urban-Design-Frameworks)
Glen Eira does not have structure plans whilst every other council in the metropolitan area does. Residents have never been provided with an adequate explanation as to why not. Yet we find this paragraph in the current discussion paper on Theme 2 – Urban Design in Activity Centres –
Guidance for development in these areas can include local policies, structure plans, urban design frameworks, zones, and overlay controls. Currently, Glen Eira utilises a combination of zoning and local policies to outline the preferred planning outcomes for its activity centres.High-rise development in commercial zones has recently been raised as a concern as prescriptive height limits do not apply at present.
Readers should also note that:
- Urban design frameworks do not exist.
- Design and Development overlays of note do not exist
- The only ‘overlays’ in activity centres are student parking, and some for flooding and heritage. Yet, in their wisdom, council still decided that some heritage areas should be included in Residential Growth Zones (ie in Bentleigh).
As far as ‘preferred planning outcomes’ goes, all that the planning scheme contains for its major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick and Carnegie, are ill-defined, nebulous and contradictory statements. For example – readers should ask themselves what the following means, when no definitions, or precise criteria are provided.
BENTLEIGH
- Where opportunities exist, a range of housing types be promoted at increased densities.
- Where opportunities exist, medium density housing be encouraged in the residential areas surrounding the centre.
- The managed change of the neighbourhood character of these areas be encouraged.
CARNEGIE
- Encourage higher-density residential development.
- Increased density residential developments be encouraged.
- The managed change of the neighbourhood character be encouraged.
ELSTERNWICK
- A multi-storey car park may be developed within the existing Coles supermarket car parking area if sympathetically designed to complement the surrounding built form.
- All developments provide adequate off street parking to protect the amenity of the residents.
- New developments provide an appropriate interface to adjacent valued community assets such as the churches
- This precinct be encouraged as an area for higher density development at heights compatible with adjacent buildings.
The height of residential developments be determined by:
- Site context, including the scale and character of surrounding development.
- Site characteristics, including area, dimensions, orientation and topography.
- Existing development on the site, including height, bulk and site coverage.
Returning to the discussion paper, we find the most extraordinary sentence:
This (structure plans) can offer certainty for residents and developers alike but takes time to implement due to the complexity of research required.
Should we interpret this as an admission that because something is ‘complex’ that it is beyond the capability of council administration? And if it does ‘take time’, then council has had 17 years to get its act together and produce some decent planning.
Here are some questions that residents should consider asking their representatives:
- Is council contemplating introducing height limits on commercial areas only in the major activity centres of Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Carnegie? Will council introduce height limits on commercial sites in its Neighbourhood Centres such as Bentleigh East, McKinnon, Ormond, Murrumbeena, Caulfield North, Glen Huntly, etc?
- Why has council refused to introduce structure planning and will they begin this process now?
- Why are heritage areas zoned as Residential Growth zones in Bentleigh, when the government’s practice notes clearly state that such areas should be excluded from the RGZ?
April 18, 2016 at 8:30 AM
Excellent questions. I worry that the smaller centres will still be getting 7 storeys in them and council will only do something about the three main areas. Permits have already been given for high rise in East Bentleigh and North Caulfield. It won’t be long before Ormond and McKinnon join in and Murrumbeena is half way there already. Anyway, just putting a height limit on something isn’t the full solution. You can still build 4 storey monstrosities and pat yourself on the back for allowing only 4 storeys. They need to look at design, internal amenity, car parking, open space and god knows what else. That’s what structure plans are supposed to do and what Glen Eira doesn’t want to do. No one should be satisfied with just putting on height limits. We have seen what that means in suburban streets all over. Height limits are only one aspect of good planning and by itself is never enough.
April 18, 2016 at 9:01 AM
good comment. I agree completely. Drive down some streets and look at the designs of these places and what boxes they are and its plain why height limits by themselves are not enough. They have ruined suburbs because of their lousy planning.
April 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM
What about a tax on land banking
April 18, 2016 at 10:53 AM
What about refusing to give extension after extension for permits? Make developers apply again.
April 18, 2016 at 11:21 AM
yes, that needs to be done
April 18, 2016 at 3:28 PM
Since it is an election year, I’d like to see an audit of all the multi-unit developments granted permits for whether they comply with the residential amenity and parking standards, and what the extraordinary circumstances are if they don’t comply. There should also be a complete overhaul of 21.14 Monitoring and Review, since it is utterly useless with no meaningful targets. “Majority of applications made in accordance with MSS and LPPF” simply isn’t good enough.
Council hasn’t come clean about why it thinks there is an 85-year supply eg how it calculated such a bodgy number. Since there is no height limit for C1Z and no standards, there cannot be a limit on development potential. The current regime is one that Cr Hyams lobbied for—no structure plans and a lot of single dwellings who have been very unfairly treated.
April 18, 2016 at 5:16 PM
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, or a euphemism for we won’t do it cos we don’t have to and it might cost us some money. Anyway, we don’t have the expertise, will, or backbone to ask people what they really and truly want. That says a lot about the quality of the hired staff that leads onto asking why other places can get staff who are able to deal with complexity, or it says that council won’t spend a penny on worthwhile stuff if they can get away with not spending it. Remember Glen Huntly for instance?Returned $35000 to gov instead of doing the structure plan. Better to let the market and developers decide planning in Glen Eira and then turn around and blame vcat. A fabulous job done by Newton and his arse kissing councillors.
April 18, 2016 at 9:18 PM
http://mojonews.com.au/glen-eira-children-rejected-from-sporting-clubs/