Environment 1987 - City of Monash · Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C113 Gaming, Licensed Premises

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C113

Gaming, Licensed Premises and Environmentally Sustainable Design Policies

22 May 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C113

Gaming, Licensed Premises and Environmentally Sustainable Design Policies

22 May 2015

Nick Wimbush, Chair

Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C113 Panel Report 22 May 2015

Page i

Contents Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background to the Amendment .............................................................................. 1 1.3 Exhibition and submissions ..................................................................................... 2 1.4 The Panel ................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Hearings and inspections ........................................................................................ 3 1.6 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 3

2 Planning Context ......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................... 8 2.3 Other planning strategies ........................................................................................ 8 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 12 2.5 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 12

3 Licensed Premises Policy (clause 22.11) .................................................................... 13 3.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 14

4 Gaming Policy (clause 22.12) ..................................................................................... 15 4.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 15 4.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 15 4.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 17

5 Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy (clause 22.13)......................................... 18 5.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 18 5.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 18 5.3 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 21

6 Summary and recommendations .............................................................................. 24 6.1 Summary................................................................................................................ 24 6.2 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 24

Appendix A List of submitters

Appendix B Panel recommended clause 22.13

List of Tables Page

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 3


Page ii

List of Abbreviations

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

EED Environmentally Efficient Design

EPA Environment Protection Authority

ESD Environmentally Sustainable Development

HIA Housing Industry Association

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NCC National Construction Code

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VCGLR Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Page 1 of 33

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C113 (the Amendment) was prepared by Monash City Council as Planning Authority and Proponent. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to:

Amend Clause 21.04 (Residential Development) to reflect the introduction of the new Clause 22.13 – Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy

Amend Clause 21.05 (Economic Development) to reflect the introduction of Clause 22.12 – Gaming Policy

Amend Clause 21.06 (Activity Centres) to reflect the introduction of Clause 22.11 – Licensed Premises Policy

Amend Clause 21.13 (Sustainability and Environment) to reflect the introduction of Clause 22.13 – Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy into the Monash Planning Scheme

Insert a new Clause 22.11 Licensed Premises Policy into the Monash Planning Scheme

Insert a new Clause 22.12 Gaming Policy into the Monash Planning Scheme

Insert a new Clause 22.13 Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy into the Monash Planning Scheme.

1.2 Background to the Amendment

The Amendment relates to all of the land within the City of Monash, and proposes to introduce the following local policies into the planning scheme, as described by Council.

(i) Licensed Premises Policy (clause 22.11)

The Licensed Premises Policy was developed in order to provide guidance for Council in relation to considering new licensed premises and changes to the operation of existing licensed premises. The aims of the policy are …to minimise the potential for any future negative impacts of new and expanded Licensed Premises in the Glen Waverley and Oakleigh Activity Centres.1

(ii) Gaming Policy (clause 22.12)

The Gaming Policy aims to establish a framework to assist Council in relation to assessing and managing any planning application that relates to installing electronic gaming machines in areas that fall outside the current prohibited schedule areas.

The policy undertakes this through the provision of comprehensive assessment criteria to assist in the selection and assessment of the suitability of sites for gaming machines.2

1 Council meeting minutes 29 July 2014, p12. 2 Council meeting minutes 29 July 2014, p14.


Page 2 of 33

(iii) Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy (clause 22.13)

The Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)3 Policy aims to provide objectives and decision guidelines to assist in assessing whether development achieves environmentally efficient design objectives. Council considers that the proposed policy does not prescribe sustainability actions or performance outcomes. Providing background to the policy, Council stated:

The EED Policy has been developed from, and is generally consistent with, similar policies that have been adopted by the municipalities of Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra. These Councils have recently completed the independent panel and advisory committee review process for their individual EED policies.4

1.3 Exhibition and submissions

The Amendment was exhibited between 10 October and 21 November 2014. In response to exhibition, a total of fifteen submissions were received. Three submissions raised no objection to the Amendment, seven submissions were identified by Council as not being relevant because they dealt with issues that did not relate to the Amendment, and two submissions (Submission 3 and 12) were subsequently withdrawn. The opposing submissions raised the following issues (as summarised by Council):

Gaming Policy

Request that Waverley RSL be exempt from the Policy

Concern about the amenity impacts on residents due to gaming.

Licensed Premises Policy

Concern about the amenity impacts on residents due to licensed premises.

Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy

ESD should be covered in the building regulations not by planning

Cost benefit analysis is inadequate/housing affordability issues with introducing policy

The joint submission from Councils identified minor inconsistencies between the Monash policy and theirs.

At its meeting of 27 January 2015, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel.

1.4 The Panel

The Panel was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 14 February 2015 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and comprised Jenny Moles (Chair) and Nick Wimbush. On 19 March 2015, the Panel was reconstituted with Mr Wimbush as a single member.

3 Or Environmentally Sustainable Development or Environmentally Efficient Design (EED). 4 Council meeting 29 July 2014, p15.


Page 3 of 33

1.5 Hearings and inspections

A Directions Hearing was held on 31 March 2015 and the main Hearing on 21 April 2015 at the City of Monash offices in Glen Waverley. Unaccompanied inspections of the Glen Waverley Activity Centre and Oakleigh Activity Centre were undertaken on the 21 April 2015.

Those who appeared at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

City of Monash Ms Maria Marshall of Maddocks Lawyers supported by Ms Meghann McKay

Cities of Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip,

Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra

Ms Elizabeth Brant and Mr Euan Williamson, City of Yarra

Housing Industry Association Mr Mike Hermon

Mr Steven Lakotij

1.6 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

Licensed premises policy

Gaming policy

Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy


Page 4 of 33

2 Planning Context

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report and its submission to the Hearing.

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

2.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework

Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF.

Clause 11 Settlement – The Licensed Premises policy relates specifically to the Glen Waverley and Oakleigh Activity Centres. Council considers that clause 11.01‐2 Activity Centre Planning supports this policy. This clause seeks:

To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community.

Council considers that the following strategies are relevant to the Amendment:

Undertake strategic planning for the use and development of land in and around the activity centres

Improve the social, economic and environmental performance and amenity of the centre.

Clause 11.04‐4 Liveable communities and neighbourhoods – This clause gives support to the three policies, in seeking To create healthy and active neighbourhoods and maintain Melbourne’s identity as one of the world’s most liveable cities. Council considers that the following strategies are relevant:

Use the city structure to drive sustainable outcomes in managing growth

Protect and restore natural habitats in urban and non‐urban areas

Improve noise and air quality to improve human and environmental health

Integrate whole of water cycle management to deliver sustainable resilient urban development

Protect significant water and sewerage assets

Reduce energy consumption and transition to clean energy

Plan for better waste management and resource recovery.

Clause 11.04‐5 Environment and Water is relevant to the ESD policy. The clause seeks To protect natural assets and better plan our water, energy and waste management systems to create a sustainable city. Council considers that the following strategies are relevant:

Use the city structure to drive sustainable outcomes in managing growth

Protect and restore natural habitats in urban and non‐urban areas

Improve noise and air quality to improve human and environmental health

Integrate whole of water cycle management to deliver sustainable and resilient urban development


Page 5 of 33

Protect significant water and sewerage assets

Reduce energy consumption and transition to clean energy

Plan for better waste management and resource recovery.

Clause 15.01‐1 Urban Design is relevant to the ESD Policy. It seeks To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity. The following strategies are relevant:

Promote good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive

Ensure new development or redevelopment contributes to community and cultural life by improving safety, diversity and choice, the quality of living and working environments, accessibility and inclusiveness and environmental sustainability

Require development to respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate

Require development to include a site analysis and descriptive statement explaining how the proposed development responds to the site and its context

Ensure sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastlines are protected and that new development does not detract from their natural quality

Ensure transport corridors integrate land use planning, urban design and transport planning and are developed and managed with particular attention to urban design aspects

Encourage retention of existing vegetation or revegetation as part of subdivision and development proposals.

Clause 15.01‐2 Urban Design Principles – This clause identifies a number of design principles, which apply to development proposals for non‐residential development or residential development not covered by clauses 54, 55 or 56. These design principles include responding to context (including natural context), light and shade, energy and resource efficiency and architectural quality.

Clause 16 Housing – This clause contains a number of strategies seeking water and energy efficient housing and integrated transport planning.

Clause 17 Economic Development and Clause 19.02‐3 Cultural facilities – Council noted that Clause 17.01‐1 seeks to encourage development that meets the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment and other commercial services, in order to ensure a net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

Similarly, clause 19.02‐3 seeks to develop a strong cultural environment and increase access to arts, recreation and other cultural facilities. Council noted the relevant strategies which include …encouraging a wide range of arts, cultural and entertainment facilities including cinemas, restaurants, nightclubs and live theatres, at Principal and Major Activity Centres.


Page 6 of 33

Council stated:

The Amendment acknowledges the contribution that Licensed Premises make to the vibrancy and character of the Glen Waverley and Oakleigh Activity Centres and that gaming is a legitimate business and recreational activity. It does not seek to prohibit such uses. Rather, it seeks to minimise the adverse social and economic impacts that can be associated with such uses by providing policy guidance on the location, operation and design of Licensed Premises and Gaming venues.

Clause 19 Infrastructure – Council considers that this clause is also relevant to the ESD Policy as …it seeks to plan for provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiency meets needs while protecting the environment. In addition, Clause 19.03‐3 also aims to reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments.

2.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

(i) Municipal Strategic Statement

Council submitted that the Amendment supports the following local planning objectives.

Clause 21.02‐1 Moving towards sustainability; and

Clause 21.02‐4 Activity Centre growth – this clause seeks to …maintain and enhance the ‘cosmopolitan range of activity centres across the municipality to continue to meet community needs and preferences for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services’ and recognising that these activities ‘contribute to the significant level of economic activity and employment in Monash’.

Clause 21.04 Residential Development – Council considers that the ESD policy is supported by existing references in clause 21.04‐3 which …encourage ‘building practices and dwelling preferences that are energy efficient and sustainable and that incorporate landscape design and use of construction materials that minimise environmental impacts’. Council stated that the proposed amendments to the policy will ...identify more specific ESD issues, objectives and strategies for policy implementation and exercise of discretion.

Clause 21.05 Economic Development – This clause seeks …to encourage business and employment and revitalise areas. Council proposes to amend Clause 21.05 in order for that its objectives to emphasise the need to minimise the social and economic impacts of electronic gaming machines.

Clause 21.06 Activity Centres – this clause relates to activity centres within the municipality and Council considers that it is relevant to both the Licensed Premises Policy and the Gaming Policy. Council considers the relevant objectives to include:

To enhance and promote the Glen Waverley Activity Centre as the major multi‐functional activity centre servicing the south eastern metropolitan area.

To enhance and promote the Oakleigh Activity Centre as a key focus for convenience, multi‐cultural and culinary shopping and community services.


Page 7 of 33

Council noted that implementation strategies include ensuring that new development minimises any loss of amenity to adjoining residential properties and, in relation to gaming:

Taking into account the number, location and distribution of gaming machines and their social and economic impact on the community when considering applications for additional machines through the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation.

In addition, the Amendment aims to amend the strategic directions for Glen Waverley Principal Activity Centre and Oakleigh Major Activity Centre in Table 1 of clause 21.06 to include:

Ensure licensed premises venues are well managed to minimise any adverse amenity impacts so that they positively contribute to the overall diversity and vibrancy of the Centre.

It also proposes to make reference to the proposed Licensed Premises policy under implementation strategies.

Clause 21.13 Sustainability and Environment – Council considers that the ESD policy is supported by clause 21.13. The policy highlights how the issue has gained importance over time. Its objectives and strategies cover a range of design elements. The Amendment proposes to insert a new objective into the policy to further support the proposed ESD policy, being:

To ensure that there is incorporation of environmentally sustainable design principles when a new building is being designed.

Clause 21.15 Oakleigh Major Activity Centre Structure Plan – This policy identifies the boundaries of the Oakleigh Major Activity Centre. These include …providing a range of facilities and employment opportunities and creating a vibrant, attractive and safe environment. Council considers that the Amendment is consistent with this vision as it seeks to support the appropriate development of Licensed Premises and Gaming venues.

Council stated that the ESD policy is also supported by objectives within this policy that seek environmentally sustainable design.

(ii) Local Planning Policy

Clause 22.04 Stormwater Management Policy – Council considers that the ESD Policy is also consistent with and further implements objectives for stormwater management identified in clause 22.04.


Page 8 of 33

2.2 Other planning scheme provisions

2.2.1 Particular provisions

Clause 52.27 Licensed Premises is contained in all planning schemes and has the following purposes:

To ensure that licensed premises are situated in appropriate locations.

To ensure that the impact of the licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area is considered.

The clause provides permit application requirements, referral requirements and decision guidelines for the responsible authority. A schedule can be used to specify land where a permit is not required or where a permit will not be granted. There is no schedule in the Monash Planning Scheme.

Clause 52.28 Gaming is contained in all planning schemes and has the following purposes:

To ensure that gaming machines are situated in appropriate locations and premises.

To ensure the social and economic impacts of the location of gaming machines are considered.

To prohibit gaming machines in specific shopping complexes and strip shopping centres.

The clause provides permit requirements and, via schedules, identifies where gaming machines may be prohibited in shopping complexes and strip shopping centres, as well as providing decision guidelines for the responsible authority. Schedules to clause 52.28‐3 and clause 52.28‐4 specify a number of shopping complexes and strip shopping areas in Monash where gaming machines are prohibited.

The local policies for Gaming and Licensed Premises do not ‘over‐ride’ the requirements of the particular provisions, but provide clarity to the community and applicants as to how Council will make decisions on these types of applications.

2.3 Other planning strategies

Council identified a number of other planning strategies and policies relevant to the Amendment.

2.3.1 Licensed premises policy

(i) City of Monash Public Health and Wellbeing Partnership Plan 2013‐2017

Council proposes to include this document as a reference document in clause 22.11. It contains the following priorities.

Priority 1 – seeks to maximise the health of the community and assist in the prevention of chronic disease by promoting physical activity, healthy eating and creating healthy and inviting environments.

Priority 1.3 – relates to preventing harm from tobacco and alcohol.


Page 9 of 33

Actions under the Plan include ensuring that a coordinated Council response is in place in relation to liquor licensing through policy. Part B of the Year One Action Plan includes a revised MSS to incorporate issues relating to alcohol.

(ii) Design Guidelines for Licensing Venues, Department of Justice, 2009

Also proposed to be included as a reference document in clause 22.11, this document aims to facilitate improved safety for patrons and staff of licensed premises. This will be achieved through taking into account the physical environment both internal and external to the venue. The document sets out principles and design responses for new and existing premises.

(iii) Alcohol‐related harm and the operation of licensed premises, Report to the Department of Justice, July 2009

The Department of Justice commissioned this Allen Consulting Group Report. The Report reviews the literature to establish a link between alcohol‐related harm and licensed venues. It concludes that the nature and extent of alcohol‐related harm varies between premises and that certain characteristics and practices of premises can be associated with the harm. The following five factors are identified as significant: operating hours, patron intoxication, crowding, staff and management practices and venue type.

The report analyses data that is collected from a large sample of licensed premises in Victoria. The analysis considered opening hours, patron intoxication and venue type, and concluded that venue type (venues with gaming facilities), late opening hours and venue infringements for intoxication, positively correlated with offences in or near premises.

2.3.2 Gaming policy

(i) City of Monash Public Health and Wellbeing Partnership Plan 2013‐2017

Priority 2 of this Plan encourages a community that fosters diversity, where everyone is given the same opportunity to lead healthy, socially engaged and fulfilling lives. Priority 2.2 relates to resilience to harm from gambling, and identifies the impacts of problem gambling on the community. One of the actions identified is to …take strong leadership in advocating against harm from gambling by considering applications increase Electronic Gaming Machines (EGM), promote non‐gaming facilities to the community and for Council events.

(ii) Monash Responsible Gambling Strategy 2012‐2015

Council prepared the Strategy as part of a review of the previous Monash Gambling Policy 2007. This document is proposed as a reference document in clause 22.12. The Strategy is incorrectly referred to in clause 22.12 as ‘Monash Responsible Gaming Policy’ rather than ‘Monash Responsible Gambling Strategy’, and this reference will need to be amended.

The Strategy was informed by extensive consultation with the community, gaming machine venue operators, service providers and Council staff. The Strategy focused on gaming machines because of their potential negative impacts on the community, although other gambling activities were also considered.


Page 10 of 33

The Strategy contains the Monash Gambling Policy 2012‐2014 and states that Council will take this policy into account when assessing planning permit applications to install or use gaming machines under Clause 52.28 of the Scheme (in addition to VCGLR processes). The policy includes the following guiding principles:

To ensure that new or additional EGMs will cause no net harm to the health, social and economic well‐being of residents and communities;

To ensure the location of EGMs minimises opportunities for convenience gambling and the incidence of problem gambling;

…

To encourage the redistribution of EGMs away from areas of relative disadvantage areas as described by the latest ABS SEIFA index of relative socio‐economic disadvantage;

…

EGMs should not be located where they are convenient to a concentration of shops, major community facilities or key public transport modes where large numbers of pedestrians are likely to pass in the course of their daily activities;

Council will monitor gambling losses, research, legislative changes and developments within the gambling industry, giving consideration to their implications for the community.5

Further, the Strategy notes the following:

The overall saturation of EGMs within Monash is a concern to Council. The municipality has 6.97 EGMs per 1000 adults compared to that State average of 6.19.

The spread of EGMs and venues across the City of Monash is disproportionally weighted towards our suburbs of least advantage, including Clayton, Oakleigh, Mulgrave and Ashwood. The number of EGMs available in this region of Monash was capped in 2006 …

Of the 15 venues in Monash, 10 (66%) and 673 EGMs (67%) are located in this capped region, giving residents in these suburbs a higher accessibility to EGMs. The location and density of EGMs in vulnerable and socially and economically disadvantaged areas is of continuing concern …6

(iii) A Well Hidden Issue – June 2013

Council commissioned a research project by Schottler Consulting with the aim to develop an understanding of gambling impacts, behaviours and risk factors within the City of Monash. Research found:

The City of Monash has the greatest number (990) of EGMs of any municipal area, except the City of Greater Geelong, which had 1,313 in 2011/2012. The City

5 Council submission pp9‐10. 6 Council submission p10.


Page 11 of 33

of Monash had the second highest spend on its machines ($122 million) after Brimbank, which had $145 million in the same year.

…

The current research found that limited change in expenditure has followed the removal of EGMs from venues within Monash in the ‘capped areas’ in 2007.7

…

Based on the data collated by Marsh Risk Consulting for this research project, the decline in expenditure was approximately 7% below expenditure in the previous year. With the changes to gaming entitlements (brought in during 2012), this research forecasts that net cash flows derived by venues from EGMs will increase significantly.8

The report indicated that Monash adults may have higher levels of ‘at‐risk’ gambling compared to the overall Victorian population.

2.3.3 Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) policy

Council states that the ESD policy was primarily informed by the policies proposed by Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra City Councils.

The Water Use Management Strategy 2008, Monash City Council, is currently identified as a reference document in the proposed policy, however Council no longer considers that this document should be referenced as it does not relate to the community’s use of water.

(i) Monash City Council – Environmental Sustainability Road Map (2011‐2015)

This document identifies six themes of Energy, Water, Waste and Food, Natural Environment, Transport and Planning and Design and targets under each theme. The development of a Sustainable Development Policy to be incorporated into the planning scheme is identified as a high priority under the document.

(ii) Council Plan 2013‐17, City of Monash

The Council Plan contains the Direction 4.1, which relates to ‘Our natural and built environments are protected’. Strategy 4.1.1 is ‘Focus on our ‘Environmental Sustainability Roadmap’ and strengthening our ecological sustainability’’, and Strategy 4.1.2 is ‘Continue to work on Water Sensitive Urban Design as a step towards becoming a water sensitive City’, which includes completing the Monash Integrated Water Management Plan.

(iii) City of Monash – Integrated Water Management Plan January 2014

The document referenced in the proposed policy is the November 2013 version. The final version of the document is dated January 2014. Accordingly, the reference will need to be updated.

7 Council submission p11. 8 Council submission p11.


Page 12 of 33

This document establishes a vision and themes to guide integrated water management initiatives and provides background information on the municipal water balance and the impact of urban activities on stormwater quality and quantity and downstream waterways.

The following issue is identified the Plan:

Council should investigate options to strengthen Council’s ability to enforce water sensitive design. Clause 56.07 of the Victorian Planning Provisions is the only instrument that enforces best practice management of stormwater ... Council could use structure plans, the section 173 agreements, or amend the local planning scheme to better support water sensitive design in these developments.9

2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

In their Strategic Assessment of the Amendment, Council identified that the following Ministerial Directions are relevant to the Amendment:10

Ministerial Direction 9: Metropolitan Strategy

Ministerial Direction 11: Strategic Assessment Guidelines.

The Panel has reviewed Council’s submissions on the Ministerial Directions and notes they are not addressed in third party submissions. The Panel is satisfied that the Ministerial Directions have been complied with in the Amendment.

Planning Practice Note 8: Writing a Local Planning Policy (PPN8) is also relevant to the Amendment. The Panel is generally satisfied that the local policies have been drafted in accordance with PPN8.11

2.5 Discussion

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. The three local planning policies will assist Council in decision making on the three issue areas, Licensed Premises, Gaming and ESD.

Importantly they will provide transparency to the community and applicants on Council’s expectations in applications and approach in decision making. The Panel notes there appears to be a very low level of opposition to the Amendment, which it considers significant given the scope of the policies.

A number of particular issues were raised in submissions and these are addressed in the following chapters.

9 Council submission p13‐14. 10 Appendix 1 to the Council submission. 11 This issue is discussed further in Chapter 5.


Page 13 of 33

3 Licensed Premises Policy (clause 22.11)

3.1 Background

Within the Glen Waverley and Oakleigh Activity Centres, approximately 80 and 50 licensed premises exist respectively. These licensed premises include bars, nightclubs, karaoke bars and restaurants.

In 2011, following a violent incident that took place outside a bar in the Glen Waverley Activity Centre, Council investigated whether a local policy should be introduced into the Monash Planning Scheme.

Council undertook research into how adverse amenity impacts associated with licensed premises have been addressed across Melbourne. In doing this, Council looked into the Licensed Premises Policies introduced into the Melbourne, Moonee Valley, Yarra and Stonnington planning schemes.

In terms of the practical implication of the policy, Council stated:

The proposed Licensed Premises Policy is intended to provide guidance to decision makers considering a permit application under clause 52.27 for land within the Glen Waverley and Oakleigh Activity Centres.

The policy seeks to identify appropriate locations, uses, trading hours and patron numbers for licensed premises and to minimise adverse amenity impacts associated with licensed premises. It also contains application requirements and decision guidelines.12

3.2 Submissions

Judy Butterfield (Submission 9) raised issues in relation to the impact of loud music on residential amenity, also stating that They flout the laws by hooning, excessive unnecessary revving of engines of both car and motor cycles till all hours of the morning.

Steven Lakotij (Submission 13) stated that trading hours should be controlled on licensed premises that are located within 1km of urban residential property. In the Hearing he expanded on this point and suggested that if a licensed premises was proposed in the 1km distance, then they could have restrictions on operating hours and amplified music.

In response, Ms Marshall for Council stated that the policy …aims to balance the rights of people in the community to consume alcohol responsibly against the risks of alcohol related harm. The proposed policy strikes the correct balance.13

Ms Marshall also submitted that at its meeting on 27 July 2014, Council resolved to delete the 1.00am limitation on hours of operation, in order for each application for a permit to be assessed against the criteria and in the context of the local area.14

12 Council submission para 8. 13 Council submission para 160. 14 Council submission, para 161.


Page 14 of 33

Ms Marshall for Council submitted that there is less consistency amongst such policies in planning schemes than there is for gaming policies; but the proposed policy here is similar to clause 22.10 introduced into the Stonnington Planning Scheme via Amendment C41.

Ms Marshall outlined a number of key findings of Planning Panels on licensed premises policies and submitted that the proposed Monash policy is consistent with this guidance.15 These common elements were said to include:

Application of the policy to clause 52.27

Comprehensive decision guidelines

Avoidance of mandatory language

Not including reference documents that do not add to the policy

The inclusion of on‐site noise attenuation measures where necessary

The consideration of overlap in applications between planning and liquor licensing

The requirement for a management plan.

Ms Marshall submitted that the policy is the only one she is aware of that suggests a numerical limit on patrons,16 but as this is framed in discretionary language (‘should not’), it is appropriate.

3.3 Discussion and conclusions

There were very few submissions commenting on or objecting to the inclusion of the licensed premises policy. The Panel notes these, and appreciates Mr Lakotij attending the Hearing to elaborate on his views.

Having considered the submissions and Council’s approach to the local policy, the Panel is satisfied that it will be provide additional transparency in decision making on licensed premises applications for applicants and the community.

While the Panel appreciates the additional considerations put forward in relation to a 1km distance, the Panel considers that the policy itself as drafted provides adequate policy guidance for Council to consider issues such as amenity for neighbours, safety and noise. The Panel recommends in Chapter 6 that this element of the Amendment be adopted as exhibited.

15 Council submission, para 155. 16 150 in clause 22.11‐3.


Page 15 of 33

4 Gaming Policy (clause 22.12)

4.1 Background

As outlined in section 2.2.1 of this report, clause 52.28 of the planning scheme contains permit requirements for gaming machines and schedules to the clause identify areas where they are prohibited.

The proposed clause 22.12 applies to the consideration of application for gaming machines outside the prohibited areas.

Council stated in submissions that:

The policy seeks to minimise harm associated with problem gaming by discouraging gaming machines that are proximate to vulnerable communities and seeking to ensure that the location of gaming machines minimises opportunities for convenience gaming. It also seeks to protect the amenity of existing uses around gaming venues. In addition to setting out locational criteria, the policy contains application requirements and decision guidelines.17

The extensive background research and strategies around gambling (and gaming) are outlined in section 2.3.2 of this report, and particularly the Monash Responsible Gambling Strategy 2012‐2015 which will be a reference document in the policy.

4.2 Evidence and submissions

Three submissions were received in relation to the Gaming Policy.

Barbara Miller (Submission 1) stated that no new gaming licenses should be approved within Monash, because … Monash has more than its share per head of population than other areas.

Glen Waverley RSL (submission 15) stated that the RSL revenue from gaming machines funds a number of social activities along with subsidised meals and expanding welfare programs, that The RSL stands apart from other gaming venues in this regard. They suggested the proposed amendment may impact on the RSL’s continuing presence in the community.

The RSL was originally going to appear at the Hearing but immediately prior determined not to be represented.

In response to the RSL submission, Ms Marshall for Council stated that Monash has a high overall density of gaming machines and levels of expenditure on the machines that is well in excess of the Melbourne and State averages. High numbers of these gaming machines are located in disadvantaged areas of Monash, and distributed unevenly across the municipality. She submitted that the new policy would only apply to permit applications and not existing venues:

At its current location, the Glen Waverley RSL has a site specific exemption to the prohibition contained in clause 52.58. If the RSL decides to relocate to a new

17 Council submission para 8.5.


Page 16 of 33

venue, the Gaming Policy would provide guidance on an appropriate location. The Gaming Policy will not prohibit the relocation.18

Steven Lakotij (submission 13) requested that Council limit the operating hours of gaming venues to minimise the amenity impact of these premise on neighbouring residents and to reduce the issues associated with problem gambling. He also suggested the 1km area apply as he suggested for licensed premises as a suitable area where tighter controls might apply.

In response, Council stated that one of the decision guidelines is whether the proposed policy will have a high impact on the amenity of the area and surrounding uses. Council stated that The primary purpose of the policy is to ensure that the location, design and operation of venues occurs in a way that minimises harm to the community arising from problem gambling.19

In response to a direction from the Panel, Council provided an assessment of the Monash approach against other local gaming policies. The overall conclusion was that the approach is generally consistent with other policies as considered in Panel reports including:20

Similar basic structure

The importance of application requirements

The acceptance of the concept of ‘accessible but not convenient’; and the use of the SEIFA index to define areas of disadvantage21

Avoidance of locations of day to day activity including shops and railway stations.

Ms Marshall submitted that as other Panel reports have noted, there is no reference to gaming in the SPPF which leaves a policy vacuum; and in this context the use of a local policy to provide guidance is appropriate.

She also submitted that the proposed policy is consistent with findings in Panel reports as follows:22

Net community benefit should be a consideration in decision making on gaming applications

There should not be differentiation between properties or ownership and the issue

The considerations in the policy should be consistent with the Gambling Regulation Act 2003

Threshold distances should be along roads not ‘as the crow flies’

Gaming machines density is an appropriate guide for the location of machines in particular areas

Consideration should be given to areas of greater vulnerability in the policy

A flexible approach should be taken to floorspace for gaming machines.

She submitted that the approach is most similar to that adopted in Port Phillip Planning Scheme Amendment C88, which was supported by a Panel with some changes.

18 Council submission para 172. 19 Council submission para 177. 20 Council submission para 136‐141. 21 SEIFA – Socio‐Economic Indexes for Areas 22 Council submission, para 147.


Page 17 of 33


As for the Licensed Premises policy, there was very little substantive objection to this element of the Amendment. The Panel notes the submission of the Waverley RSL but considers its position should not be adversely affected by the Amendment. The Amendment will not prevent its existing operations, and if it wants to relocate then it will need to do so within the framework of clause 52.28 and the new local policy. The Panel considers this appropriate.

The other submissions were broadly supportive of the Amendment but requested changes to either prohibit or further restrict gaming machines.

The Panel considers that the Council’s approach in the local policy is reasonable. Gaming machines are already restricted in many (shopping) areas of the municipality. The policy should assist Council in making decisions around new or relocated gaming machines to minimise the harm to the community that gambling and gaming machines can cause whilst providing for the ‘recreational opportunity’ that they provide.

The Panel is also satisfied that the Policy adopts an approach and drafting that is consistent with the current thinking on gaming in planning schemes.

The Panel recommends support for the Amendment in Chapter 6. A minor correction to the reference document in the policy is also recommended.


Page 18 of 33

5 Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy (clause 22.13)

5.1 Background

The Monash City Council Environmental Sustainability Road Map (2011‐2015) identified a need for policy development on this issue; in particular, the incorporation of a sustainable development policy, and other subsequent strategic documents built on this theme. The policy was developed taking into account similar policies proposed by Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra City Councils. The proposed Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD)23 policy applies to all development that requires a planning permit application under the Scheme, although it tailors its information requirements according to the nature of development as set out in Table 1 of the policy. Council stated:

The policy aims to provide a framework for the consideration of environmental sustainability at the building design stage. The overarching objective of the policy is that development should achieve best practice environmentally sustainable development. It identifies a number of objectives to be achieved across a range of design elements. It contains application requirements and decision guidelines to assist in the assessment of whether development achieves environmentally efficient development objectives.24

5.2 Evidence and submissions

Mr Hermon provided submissions for the Housing Industry Association (HIA) (Submission 14) which was concerned that the ESD policy will have a detrimental impact on housing affordability. At the Hearing, HIA stated that the proposed clause 22.13 will add …another layer of planning assessment and controls that is not warranted in the planning space of the development approval process (particularly in relation to residential developments) ...

HIA stated that the proposed clause 22.13:

Overlaps and contravenes the role of the National Construction Code (NCC) for buildings

Has not been tested through rigorous and comprehensive cost benefit analysis

Disregards the realities of the building process…Change in construction are commonplace given changes to the availability of cost of materials, new technologies coming into the market affecting material choice and changes to the economic situation or budget constraints

…

Housing affordability aspects have not been considered.25

23 Exhibited as Environmentally Sustainable Design but now recommended to be Environmentally Sustainable

Development. 24 Council submission para 8.6. 25 HIA submission page 3.


Page 19 of 33

Mr Hermon also submitted that a number of specific policy objectives are explicitly covered by the NCC including energy efficiency, water resources, indoor environment air quality and stormwater management.

He also submitted that the planning application process is too early to be considering detailed aspects of development and building design and these elements are already adequately addressed in State and Local policy and the MSS.26

Mr Hermon outlined the Greensmart program that is run by the HIA, a voluntary initiative for educating stakeholders about environmental endeavours in the residential building industry.

Another submitter, Mr John Sale, a retired architect, also objected to this element of the Amendment.27 Mr Sale’s objections were generally similar to the HIA’s in that many of the issues covered should properly be left to the NCC. He also objected to the additional detailed design work and the employment of assessors upfront in the development process, thus he submitted increasing the costs to developers and consumers.

He also noted the proposal to make such sustainability assessments voluntary for 1‐2 dwellings might itself prevent the objectives of the policy being met given the large amount of construction of this type of residential development.

In response, Ms Marshall for Council stated that a benefit of including ESD policy in the planning scheme is that it can be cost effectively incorporated into the design stage. For instance, considering the building orientation or window location have a minimal additional upfront cost but can result in reduced life cycle costs and operating costs, along with improving the liveability of the dwelling.

Ms Marshall noted that the detailed issues raised by the HIA and Mr Sale were considered extensively in the Environmentally Efficient Design Advisory Committee (EEDAC) report, which recommended that there is a place for local sustainability policies such as this.28

In relation to housing affordability, she submitted:29

…Many design solutions, building orientation or window location, have no or minimal additional upfront cost and often result in reduced life cycle costs, operating costs and improve the liveability of the dwelling.

Ms Marshall also noted that the Advisory Committee was satisfied that on balance there were clear benefits to introducing such policies when costs and benefits were considered.

A joint submission from Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra and Whitehorse City Councils (submission 10) strongly supported the ESD policy in principle, but identified inconsistencies between the proposed ESD policy and the policies adopted in each of their municipalities and supported by the 2014 Advisory Committee. Ms Brant and Mr Williamson from Yarra attended the Hearing and submitted that a consistent policy approach was desirable across municipalities.

26 HIA submission page 4. 27 He did not make a verbal submission at the Hearing. 28 Environmentally Efficient Design Local Policies Advisory Committee and Panel Report [2014] PPV 40 29 Council submission, para 185.


Page 20 of 33

The following changes were recommended by the Councils:30

Minor clarification changes such as changing the name of the policy from Environmentally Sustainable Design to Environmentally Sustainable Development;

Rewording of some of the decision guidelines (although there will be no change to the intent of the Policy);

Clarifying exactly what types of accommodation uses require a Sustainability Management Plan or a Sustainable Design Assessment;

Remove the voluntary application requirements; and

Changes to ensure that the requirements of the Sustainability Management Plan and Sustainable Design Assessment are made clearer.

In response, Council noted the concerns raised by the joint Council submitters and have amended the ESD Policy as shown in Appendix B.

In response to a request from the Panel, Council also provided submissions on:

The ESD Policy in relation to the PPN8, Writing a Local Planning Policy

Implications of the Court of Appeal decision Boroondara City Council v 1045 Burke Road Pty Ltd & Ors [2015] VSCA 27.

In relation to the ESD policy, Ms Marshall submitted that the policy, and indeed all three policies, are consistent with PPN8. She said this was, in summary, because they:31

Do not repeat or contradict other provisions of the scheme

Do not contain broad objectives or strategies more appropriately in the MSS

Would not be more appropriately implemented through zones or overlays

Are derived from objectives and strategies in the MSS

Relate to specific permit discretion and seek to guide the exercise of that discretion

Are self contained

Do not contain mandatory requirements

Are in plain English

Are consistent with the format and structure sought by PPN8

Include performance requirements (gaming and ESD), for example by the ESD using tools as a measure of how effectively the policy objectives have been met.

In response to a question from the Panel as to whether it appropriate for the ESD policy to apply to such a broad range of permit triggers32, Ms Marshall submitted that the PPN8 allows for application to a ‘specific discretion or group of discretions.’33

She also noted that there are existing long standing policies in the scheme with such an application, identified as Clause 22.04 Stormwater Management Policy, and Clause 22.05 Tree Conservation Policy. These policies apply to ‘All land’ in the municipalities, and presumably all permit applications.

30 Identified in the Monash Council submission para 190. 31 Council submission, para 94. 32 As opposed to the specific triggers in clauses 52.27 and 52.28 for the other policies. 33 PPN8, Page 2.


Page 21 of 33

In relation to the Court of Appeal Decision (‘Burke Road’), Ms Marshall submitted that the ESD policy is different to the other policies, in that they trigger permit requirements for particular development under clause 52.27 and 52.28, while the ESD policy applies broadly to all residential and non‐residential development across the municipality where a permit is triggered.

Ms Marshall provided extensive, and very useful, submissions on Burke Road including the background to the case and the key questions addressed by the Court, particularly Garde JA. She submitted amongst other things that:

Garde JA’s approach indicates that a decision maker who considers a single permit trigger application is still required to consider the entirety of the SPPF, LPPF, clause 65 and thus section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

It is difficult to see how the National Trust Principles can be reconciled with the Court’s decision.34

She submitted that:35

The impact of the Court of Appeal’s judgement is real and potentially profound. Only time will tell how it will be applied.

Ms Marshall concluded:36

We submit that at this point in time if is difficult to predict how the implications of the Court of Appeal decision for the application of the proposed ESD policy (sic). However, we suggest that, based on our understanding of the Court of Appeal decision, where a permit is required for development under any of the permit triggers under the Scheme, decision makers will be required to have regard to the ESD policy in addition to other relevant policies. The weight to be given to the ESD policy in a particular case, will be a matter for the decision maker.


Although this issue attracted the most submissions, the overall number was low. The Panel notes the objections of the HIA and Mr Sale to the Amendment. The issues they have raised were considered comprehensively in the EEDAC report, and having reviewed the submissions, there is nothing new in them that would suggest a diversion from the key findings of that report, which included:37

There is a strong legislative and policy framework that supports the need for sustainable development and which recognises that both planning and building have a significant role to play in achieving it.

There is a role and a statutory obligation for planning to advance sustainability.

34 National Trust of Australia (Victoria) v Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society

Limited [1976] VR 592. The Principle is essentially that the considerations for a decision‐maker will only be those that are directly relevant to the decision trigger itself.

35 Council submission, para 126. 36 Council submission, para 128. 37 In chapter 15.1.


Page 22 of 33

Whilst the existing State Planning Policy Framework and Victoria Planning Provisions provide a good starting point for the inclusion of sustainability, there are clear areas for improvement.

The role of planning in achieving sustainability is limited by the fact that it can only influence development that requires a planning permit.

A Statewide approach to sustainability in planning would be the most effective way to achieve the greatest sustainability outcomes; however, there is still a potential role for local policies to play in achieving greater local sustainability outcomes.

Any local approach should include a sunset clause that would enable the review of these policies upon the introduction of any Statewide approach.

The fact that the building regulatory system is generally not involved at the initial design stage of a development, when the orientation and internal layout of buildings is determined, can result in a less desirable design outcome, even though the minimum thermal energy rating is met.

The involvement of planning at the initial site planning stage enables the orientation, internal layouts and site development to be dealt with in a manner that may assist at the building approval stage in achieving the best design outcome in achieving the minimum or even a higher thermal energy rating of the building.

There are clear positive economic, social and environmental benefits to be gained through improved sustainable development outcomes in planning.

The consideration of ‘affordability’ should extend beyond construction and consider ongoing servicing costs.

The approach to sustainability in planning schemes be further reviewed to provide a more coherent, strengthened approach to implementation. This should be based on a Statewide approach and include stronger, higher guidance in the State Planning Policy Framework and Clause 65, as a minimum, with consideration of a range options.

The use of Local Policies until such time as a Statewide approach is developed should be supported, with the inclusion of a sunset clause.

It is important to note that at the time of writing there has not been a Government response to the Advisory Committee report. The six Amendments also considered by that Committee have been adopted by the Councils but not approved by the Minister for Planning.

Regardless of that situation, the Panel is required to consider the merits of the Amendment before it.

In relation to the ESD policy, the Panel notes that some of the concerns that EEDAC discussed, such as the policy will only apply to those developments requiring a planning permit, still remain, thus potentially raising issues of equity. However this Panel concludes that on balance, and noting the exemption of small developments (1‐2 dwellings) from requiring sustainability assessment in the policy, the Panel considers that most significant development will be covered by virtue of it requiring a permit.


Page 23 of 33

The Panel notes the submissions of Council in relation to Burke Road. On one reading, the case actually clarifies and strengthens the application of the policy, making it clear that even if the trigger being considered is, for example, the Heritage Overlay, ESD considerations may be relevant. As Ms Marshall indicated, this should become clearer over time.

In relation to the PPN8, the Panel is satisfied that even though the policy does not apply to a specific permit trigger, it is consistent with PPN8 in its form and content and the application to a ‘group of discretions’ is appropriate.

The last matter the Panel wishes to address is the changes to the policy in response to the Joint Councils submission.

At first glance the changes appear extensive and trigger the consideration of whether some form of re‐exhibition may be warranted. However, having reviewed them closely, the Panel does not believe this is the case. The changes are generally ‘neutral’ in the Panel’s view and do not change the objectives or function of the policy, and importantly do not impose additional requirements on applicants. If anything the changes make it easier and simpler for applicants such as:

Making it clear where sustainability assessments have already been approved for large developments these should not be repeated for subsequent ‘downstream’ permit applications

Making it clear that smaller proposals should not require the employment of specialist assessors

Removing reference to Sustainable Design Assessments for 1‐2 dwellings and Dependent Person Units

Introducing a ‘reasonableness test’ in the decision guidelines to ensure onerous requirements are not placed on small developments.

The Panel supports the form as put forward and has recommended its adoption as shown in Appendix B. There are also minor changes to reference document titles which the Panel supports.


Page 24 of 33

6 Summary and recommendations

6.1 Summary

The Panel has considered the three proposed polices and submissions and concludes overall that they will advance Council’s consideration of applications in important social and environmental areas.

Importantly, they will provide applicants and the community with clarity around how Council will approach these matters in decision making.

In relation to the ESD Policy, the Panel supports the approach of Council in progressing this issue and supports the revised policy as shown in Appendix B.

6.2 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

1. Adopt Monash Planning Scheme Amendment C113 generally as exhibited and subject to the following changes:

a) Correct the title of the reference document in clause 22.12 Gaming Policy to Monash Responsible Gambling Strategy (2012‐2015), City of Monash

b) Include the modified clause 22.13 to the Amendment as shown in Appendix B to this report.


Page 25 of 33

Appendix A List of submitters

No. Submitter

1 Barbara Miller

2 Mary Maslen

3 Evelyn Letts (submission withdrawn)

4 Victoria Taylor

5 John Sale

6 South East Water

7 Environment Protection Authority

8 Friends of Dampier Creek Reserve

9 Judy Butterfield

10 Cities of Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse, Yarra

11 Cannie Chen

12 Gina and Brian Anderson (submission withdrawn)

13 Steven Lakotij

14 Housing Industry Association

15 Waverley RSL Sub Branch Inc.


Page 26 of 33

Appendix B Panel recommended clause 22.13

MONASH PLANNING SCHEME

LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES – CLAUSE 22.13 PAGE 1 OF 7

22.13 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN

This policy applies throughout the City of Monash to residential and non residential developments that require a planning permit, in accordance with the thresholds in Table 1 of this Policy.

22.13-1 Policy Basis Monash City Council is committed to make Monash a more sustainable place to live, work and play. Critical to achieving this commitment is for development to meet appropriate environmental design standards. This policy aims to integrate environmental sustainability into land use planning, new developments and redevelopment of existing infrastructure.

This policy provides a framework for early consideration of environmental sustainability at the building design stage in order to achieve the following efficiencies and benefits:

Easier compliance with building requirements through passive design Reduction of costs over the life of the building cycle of building costs Improved housing affordability and running costs Improved amenity and liveability More environmentally sustainable urban form Integrated water management

If environmentally sustainable design is not considered at the time of planning approval the ability to achieve environmentally efficient development may be compromised by the time these matters are considered as part of a building approval or there may be difficulties or extra costs associated with retro-fitting the development to implement environmentally sustainable design (ESD) principles.

This policy does not prescribe performance outcomes. The policy enables the provision of information and provides decision guidelines which will assist in the assessment of whether development achieves environmentally efficient development design objectives.

This policy is to be implemented in conjunction with a range of non-statutory measures aimed at encouraging environmentally sustainable development. These measures include: educating residents and applicants, assisting applicants to use ESD tools, leading by example with Council projects and promotion of exemplary private projects, promotion of use of materials with favourable life cycle impacts.

22.13-2.1 Objectives The overarching objective of this policy is that development should achieve best

practice in addressing the principles of Eenvironmentally Ssustainable Ddevelopment, including from the design stage through to construction and operation.

In the context of this policy, best practice is defined as a combination of commercially proven techniques, methodologies and systems, appropriate to the scale of development and site specific opportunities and constraints, which are

DD/MM/YYYY Proposed C113





demonstrated and locally available and have already led to optimum ESD outcomes. Best practice in the built environment encompasses the full life of the build.

It is a policy objective to encourage innovative technology, design and processes in all development, which positively influence the sustainability of buildings.

The following objectives should be satisfied where applicable:

Energy efficiency To ensure the efficient use of energy. To reduce total operating greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce energy peak demand.

Water resources To ensure the efficient use of water. To reduce total operating potable water use. To encourage the collection and reuse of stormwater. To encourage the appropriate use of alternative water sources (eg. greywater).

Indoor Environment Quality To achieve a healthy indoor environment quality for the wellbeing of building

occupants, including the provision of fresh air intake, cross ventilation, natural daylight, external views and appropriate levels of lighting.

To achieve thermal comfort levels with minimised need for mechanical heating, ventilation and cooling

To reduce indoor air pollutants by use of materials with low toxic chemicals, minimal off-gassing and production of allergens.

To reduce reliance on mechanical heating, ventilation, cooling and lighting systems.

To use flexible internal controls for any mechanical systems. To minimise noise levels and noise transfer within and between buildings and

associated external areas.

Stormwater Management To reduce the impact of stormwater run-off. To improve the water quality of stormwater run-off. To achieve best practice stormwater quality outcomes. To incorporate the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater re-

use.

Transport To ensure that the built environment is designed to promote the use of walking,

cycling and public transport in that order. To minimise car dependency. To promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and supporting

infrastructure.

Waste management To ensure waste avoidance, reuse and recycling during the design, construction

and operation stages of development. To ensure durability and long term reusability of building materials.



To ensure the built environment can adapt to future needs in a waste-efficient manner

Innovation To encourage innovative technology, design and processes in all development,

which positively influence the sustainability of buildings.

Urban Ecology To protect and enhance biodiversity within the municipality. To provide environmentally sustainable landscapes and natural habitats, and

minimise the urban heat island effect. To protect and manage all remnant indigenous plant communities. To encourage the planting of indigenous vegetation. To encourage productive gardens.

22.13-3 Policy It is policy to apply Table 1 in the assessment of applications for residential and non-

residential development that applications for the types of development listed in Table 1 be accompanied by a Sustainable Design Assessment or Sustainability Management Plan which:

utilises the relevant assessment tools; and addresses relevant policy objectives.

It is policy that applications for larger non-residential developments (as specified in Table 1) be accompanied by a Green Travel Plan.

The application requirements set out in 22.13-4 do not apply to alterations or extensions to existing non-residential developments over 20,000sqm gross floor area in respect of which an ESD plan or framework:

has been approved by the Responsible Authority (whether under a planning control or otherwise);

sets out environmental targets or performance standards for that development that have the capacity to satisfy the objectives or this policy; and

set out specific ESD assessment requirements for future permit applications in respect of that development.

22.13-4 Application Requirements

An application must be accompanied by either a Sustainable Design Assessment or a Sustainability Management Plan as specified in Table 1, as appropriate.

A Sustainable Design Assessment will usually not need to be prepared by a suitably qualified person. It should:

provide a simple assessment of the development using relevant tools from the example tools listed in the table (or equivalent tools);

identify environmentally sustainable development measures proposed in response to policy objectives.





A Sustainable Management Plan should:

provide a detailed assessment of the development using relevant tools from the example tools listed in the table (or equivalent tools);

identify appropriate environmental targets or performance standards having regard to the objectives of this policy (as appropriate);

demonstrate that the building has the design potential to achieve the relevant environmental targets or performance standards;

document the means by which the targets or performance standards will be achieved.

The following table establishes the minimum standard of information required for different types of development to demonstrate how best practice can be achieved. Where appropriate, vVarious ‘tools’ have been listed in Table 1 which may be used to assess how the proposed development addresses the objectives of this policy, as appropriate. It is not intended that this is an exhaustive list and applicants may use other tools or methods to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council has also developed a range of example documents (eg. Green Travel Plan) to guide applicants, such as the Monash Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) Fact Sheets.

Table 1 – ESD Information Required

TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS EXAMPLE TOOLS

Accommodation and, or Mixed Use with residential component of:

1- 2 dwellings; or

Dependent persons unit

Voluntary Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)

STEPS

NatHERS accredited tool (eg. FirstRate)

STORM

Development of 3- 9 dwellings; or

Development of a building for accommodation other than dwellings with a gross floor area between 500m² and 1000m².

Buildings and works creating 50m² or more of additional gross floor area (excluding outbuildings)

Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) STEPS


STORM



TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS EXAMPLE TOOLS

Development of 10 or more dwellings; or 4 or more storeys, or other accommodation.

Development of a building for accommodation other than dwellings with a gross floor area of more than 1000m².

Sustainability ESD Management Plan (ESDMP)

Green Travel Plan (GTP)

STEPS


Green Star

MUSIC

STORM

Non-residential

Development of a non-residential building with a gross floor area less than 500m²; or

Alterations and additions less than 500m².

Voluntary Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)

Green Star

SDS

MUSIC

STORM

Non-residential

Development of a non-residential building with a gross floor area between and including 500m² and 1000m²; or

Alterations and additions of between and including 500m² and 1000m².

Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)

Green Star

SDS

MUSIC

STORM

Development of a non-residential building with a gross floor area of more than 1000m²; or

Development of four or more storeys: or

Alterations and additions greater than 1000m².

Sustainability ESD Management Plan (ESDMP)

Green Travel Plan (GTP)

Green Star

SDS

MUSIC

STORM

Note 1: Mixed Use developments are required to provide the information

applicable to each use component of the development and apply the relevant tools for each, as identified in Table 1.



Note 2: In the case of alterations and additions, the requirements of the Policy apply only to the alterations and additions.

Note 3: Applications for development types that cannot be assessed by a rating tool can be assessed by an alternative form of assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22.13-5 Decision Guidelines In determining an application, the Responsible Authority will consider as appropriate:

The extent to which the development meets How the proposal responds to the objectives and requirements of this policy from the design stage through to construction and operation that appropriate tools have been used, and that the specified environmental targets to be achieved are appropriate.

Site constraints and opportunities. Whether the proposed environmentally sustainable development initiatives are

functional and effective to prevent or minimise environmental impact. Whether the proposed environmentally sustainable development initiatives are

reasonable having regard to the type and scale of the development. Whether appropriate tools or alternative assessment methods have been used. In circumstances requiring a Sustainable Design Assessment, whether the

development has been designed to be able to meet any minimum environmental targets within relevant tools.

In circumstances requiring a Sustainability Management Plan: - whether appropriate environmental targets have been set; and - whether the development has been designed to be able to the environmental

targets. How the development considers:

Best practice principles; Innovation; Use of emerging and proven technology; and Commitment to go beyond compliance throughout the construction period

and subsequent operation of the building(s). Any relevant adopted policies.

22.13-6 Reference Documents First Rate, Tool contained within the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) suite of software, www.nathers.gov.au

Green Star, Green Building Council of Australia, www.gbca.com.au

Moreland “STEPS” (Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance Strategy), Moreland City Council, www.morelandsteps.com.au

STORM, Melbourne Water, www.storm.melbournewater.com.au

Sustainable Design Scorecard (SDS) assessment tool, City of Port Phillip www.portphillip.vic.gov.au/sds

Urban Stormwater Environmental Management Best Practice Guidelines, CSIRO, 1999. Victoria’s Environmental Sustainability Framework, Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2005.

Integrated Transport Plans - Advisory Note, Department of Transport, 2008.





Council Plan 2013-2017, City of Monash

Environmental Sustainability Road Map, 2011-2015, Monash City Council

Water Use Management Strategy, 2008, Monash City Council

City of Monash Integrated Water Management Plan, Nov 2013, Final (Revised), January 2014, Ecology Engineering Design

Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process Facts Sheets

The above reference documents and websites include references to documents and websites which may be amended from time to time

22.13-7 Expiry This Policy will expire if it is superseded by an equivalent provision of the Victoria Planning Provisions.
