Planning and Environment Act 1987 · 2017. 7. 31. · 5. Delete the draft Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay from the Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016. 6. Consider

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C114

Macedon Urban Design Guidelines

26 June 2017

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the Act

Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C114

Macedon Urban Design Guidelines

26 June 2017

Kathy Mitchell, Chair

Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C114 Panel Report 26 June 2017

Contents Page

Executive summary and recommendations ......................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Authorisation ........................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Exhibition and submissions ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 Site inspections ........................................................................................................ 6 1.5 Key issues ................................................................................................................ 6

2 Strategic planning context .......................................................................................... 8

2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Relevant planning strategies or policies ................................................................. 9 2.3 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 13 2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 14 2.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 14

3 Form of the Amendment .......................................................................................... 15

3.1 Heights and upper level setbacks .......................................................................... 15 3.2 Setbacks and site coverage ................................................................................... 17 3.3 Property boundaries .............................................................................................. 19 3.4 Other drafting changes .......................................................................................... 20 3.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 22

Appendix A Document list

Appendix B Panel version of DDO26

List of Figures Page

Figure 1: Subject land and Key Opportunity Sites (from Council Part A submission) .............................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Area zoned Commercial 1 (from Council Part A submission) ................................. 4

Figure 3 Macedon Village Centre Study Framework Plan (from Council Part A submission) ........................................................................................................ 10


Abbreviations

CFA Country Fire Authority

DDO Design and Development Overlay

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

MMRA Macedon Ranges Residents Association

MRPAC Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee

PPN Planning Practice Note

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal


Overview

Amendment Summary

The Amendment Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C114

Common Name Macedon Urban Design Guidelines

Proposal Implement the Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016 into the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme through a new Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 to guide development of land in the Commercial 1 Zone, and amend Clause 21.13‐6 to reflect the vision of the Guidelines, and to include the Guidelines as a Reference Document

Subject Site Victoria Street, Macedon, between Smith and Bruce Streets

Planning Authority Macedon Ranges Shire Council

Authorisation AO3461, 20 October 2016

Exhibition 11 November 2016 to 30 January 2017

Submissions Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources

Country Fire Authority

Macedon Ranges Residents Association

Macedon Property Developments Pty Ltd (Centrum Town Planning)

Five individual submitters (Ronald Fitt, G Smallwood, John Phair, Joe Leonello, Luchena Smith)

Panel Process

The Panel Kathy Mitchell, Chair

Directions Hearing Tuesday 2 May 2017 at Gisborne

Panel Hearing Tuesday 30 May 2017 at Gisborne

Site Inspections Unaccompanied on 2 and 30 May 2017

Appearances Macedon Ranges Shire Council, represented by Philip Schier, Strategic Planner

Macedon Ranges Residents Association Inc, represented by Christine Pruneau, Secretary

Joe Leonello, and represented by Fiona Slechten of Calibre Consulting

Date of this Report 26 June 2017


Page 1

Executive summary and recommendations

Macedon is a genteel village located at the foot of the Macedon Ranges, in the Shire of Macedon Ranges. It has a small and stable population with minimal prospect for growth, mainly due to constrained land opportunities and severe bushfire threat. Indeed, the village was almost wiped out in the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires.

It has a small town centre that comprises a few shops, a limited supermarket and some cafes. Its centre is based around Victoria Street, between Bruce and Smith Streets. Council has been embarking on a strategic planning program for its Shire for several years now and following the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy 2011, has undertaken Structure Plans for key townships, as well as other strategic initiatives.

Through Amendment C114, Council now proposes to introduce the Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016 for the Macedon Village Commercial Centre to guide future commercial and residential activity in the centre but at the same time, to maintain the low scale village character. The Guidelines are proposed to be introduced through minor changes to Clause 21.13 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme, and through the introduction of a new Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay.

Following significant community consultation, as well as formal notification to almost 1,200 residents, ten written submissions were received. The issues in contention were mainly about clarification and wording issues to the Design and Development Overlay.

After a Directions Hearing on 2 May 2017, a Panel Hearing was held at Gisborne on 30 May 2017 to provide the opportunity for submitters to speak to their written submission.

From its review of the Amendment, the written submissions and the matters raised at the Hearing, the Panel supports the intent and structure of the Amendment and considers it will provide sufficient guidance to enhance and guide the future built form of the Macedon Village Commercial Centre.

The Panel commends Council for its commitment to strategic planning and for initiating this Amendment as part of its overall program of strategic planning work. It is a well‐founded and robust planning control that will allow for long term planning of the commercial centre of Macedon in a positive and considered manner.

The Panel notes the revised Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes was released just prior to the Hearing. The implications of this will need careful consideration by Council as the Amendment progresses.

Apart from this issue and some further modifications, the Panel supports the adoption of Amendment C114 to the Macedon Planning Scheme.


Page 2

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Amendment C114 be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following:

Amend the Map ‘Macedon Town Structure Plan’ at Clause 21.13 to include the 1.boundary of the Macedon Village Commercial Centre in the box labelled ‘Town Centre’.

Amend Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 (Version 2, 22 March 2017), 2.subject to the further modifications as provided in Appendix 2.

Ensure that the lot boundaries in Map 1 of Design and Development Overlay 3.Schedule 26 are consistent with the lot boundaries in the relevant zone and overlay maps.

Amend Map 1 to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 to: 4.a) provide a further setback option for the area along 19 Victoria Street

through to Smith Street, and along Margaret Street abutting 19 Victoria Street to read “undefined”

b) add the word “preferred” in front of the words ‘zero’ and ‘3 metre’ in the legend.

Delete the draft Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay from the 5.Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016.

Consider undertaking a corrections Amendment to rezone the northern part of 6.the property at 37 Margaret Street Macedon (that is not proposed to be included in Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26) from the Commercial 1 Zone to the Low Density Residential Zone.

Review the provisions and schedules of the Amendment during finalisation to 7.ensure it is consistent with the revised Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes (May 2017).


Page 3

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Amendment C114 to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme proposes to implement the key findings of the Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016 by amending Clause 21.13‐6 of the Municipal Strategic Statement, and applying a new Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay Schedule (DDO26) to approximately 2.6 hectares of land in the town centre of Macedon. The Amendment is required to implement the Guidelines by providing application requirements and decision guidelines for development in the commercial core of the township, including Key Opportunity Sites, noted as Sites 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Subject land and Key Opportunity Sites (from Council Part A submission)


Page 4

The Amendment applies to land within the Commercial 1 Zone in the township of Macedon as shown in Figure 2 (subject to a minor boundary issue abutting Margaret Street, which is discussed in Chapter 3.3).

Figure 2 Area zoned Commercial 1 (from Council Part A submission)

Current uses in the area include shops and commercial uses servicing mainly local and tourist needs, dwellings, (some of which have been adapted for commercial use) and vacant land.

Amendment C114 will introduce planning controls for the Macedon township that respond to key recommendations of the Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy 2011. The Settlement Strategy recommended a review of overlays for the township to respond to town character issues, community expectations and managing bushfire risk. The Macedon Village Centre Study 2014 established an overall framework plan that addressed these issues, covering the wider town centre area in addition to the core commercial area. The Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016 focus specifically on the core commercial area, and provide the strategic basis for planning scheme controls to respond to town character.


Page 5

1.2 Authorisation

Authorisation to proceed with Amendment C114 was issued by the Manager – Loddon Mallee Regional Planning Services of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 20 October 2016, subject to the following conditions:

the explanatory report be amended to respond to Clause 21.08 (Built environment and heritage), delete erroneous references to the Special Use Zone 6, and outline how the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan 2014

DDO26 be amended to ensure that the layout, headings and formatting are consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes

the proposed Amendment be formally referred to the Country Fire Authority (CFA).

Council advised these conditions were fulfilled by:

amending the explanatory report

amending the proposed DDO26

referring the amendment to the CFA as part of exhibition.

1.3 Exhibition and submissions

The Amendment was publicly exhibited from 11 November 2016 to 30 January 2017. Council advised the initial exhibition period of six weeks, which was due to close on 12 December 2016, was extended at the request of the incoming Council (elected in October 2016) in order to:

enable a wider direct notification by mail to all owners and occupiers in the Macedon 3440 postcode area (not just those directly affected); and

ensure that interested parties would have sufficient time beyond the Christmas and New Year period to lodge submissions.

The consultation program comprised direct notification (1,189 letters), ‘drop in’ sessions, local newspaper articles, and advertisements in local papers and the Government Gazette.

As a result of exhibition, ten submissions were received. Three submissions from agencies (including the CFA) were supportive of the Amendment. Of the remaining submissions, three supported the Amendment with some requests for changes, while four opposed the Amendment.

Council considered the submissions to the Amendment at its meeting of 22 March 2017 and resolved to refer the unresolved submissions to the Panel (noting that Council provided a copy of all submissions to the Panel).

Council made some recommended changes to the DDO26, but no further changes were made to Clause 21.13‐6. The Panel has used the revised Council version of DDO26 as proposed at its meeting of 22 March 2017 as the starting point for further review. This was raised at the Directions Hearing and while the Panel noted that it may not support all of the proposed changes as suggested by Council, it was content to use this version to progress the Amendment.


Page 6

1.4 Site inspections

At the conclusion of the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook a detailed inspection of the area subject to the Amendment, its surrounds and places further afield, including the Macedon Train Station and surrounds, Ash Wednesday Park and Mt Macedon Road. The Panel revisited the Macedon township area prior to the commencement of the Hearing on 30 May 2017.

1.5 Key issues

The Panel has considered all written submissions, as well as the further submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the subject site and its surrounds.

The submissions that provided some objection or requested changes to the Amendment were principally from:

Ronald Fitt

G Smallwood

John Phair

Joe Leonella

Macedon Property Developments Pty Ltd

Macedon Ranges Residents Association (MMRA)

Luchena Smith.

In summary, the relevant issues raised in submissions related to:

clarity of, and the need for drafting changes to DDO26

site and boundary changes and corrections

perceived weakening/softening of existing planning controls

scope of the policy change proposed for Clause 21.13‐6

impact of the Amendment on other aspects of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme.

Helpfully, some submitters, and most notably the MMRA, provided suggested drafting responses for the proposed changes they were seeking to the Amendment, which enabled the Panel to better understand the changes sought.

Some submitters expressed concern about the impact of further development in Macedon with regard to bushfire. The CFA advised through its submission that the township is within a high bushfire risk area, and that such risk in this area can be quite extreme. The CFA noted a range of options to mitigate the impacts of fire that must be incorporated in any future buildings.

The CFA cautioned against the establishment of large venues where people congregate or stay overnight (but did not define what it considered to be a large venue in the Macedon context). Further, the CFA noted:

The Macedon Township precinct has a long and established history. While lesser risk locations may be available well outside the current identified location, it is inevitable that this established township will over time develop


Page 7

with strict guidelines. CFA acknowledges that with good design particularly involving fire resistant building construction the precinct could gain greater fire resistance levels than currently exist.

The CFA concluded that “CFA supports the amendment in its current form and request to be involved in detail along the future design/implementation phases”. The Panel is aware that the CFA is a referral authority for all planning permit applications in Macedon.

The Panel considers the key issues to be reconciled in addressing the Amendment include:

strategic planning context

form of the Amendment, principally the DDO.


Page 8

2 Strategic planning context

Council provided a considered response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report, which the Panel endorses.

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and provides a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11: Settlement: reinforces a compact commercial area located centrally in Macedon within close proximity to the Macedon Railway station. Through Clause 11.12, it is consistent with the strategic intent of the Loddon Mallee Regional Growth Plan 2014.

Clause 15: Built form and heritage: provides guidance for the design of new development to retain and enhance the township’s amenity and village character.

Clause 17: Economic development: develops the commercial core of Macedon as an attractive and vibrant area with a mix of commercial and residential uses to meet local needs.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21.03: Municipal Vision and Strategic Framework: supports development of a scale and design to complement the nature and character of the area, and economic development in an appropriate location in the town centre of Macedon.

Clause 21.08: Built Environment and Heritage: supports development of an appropriate scale and design to promote development while respecting the rural character and high landscape values of the area, protecting and enhancing the existing character and built form of Macedon, and ensuring that development occurs in a sustainable manner.

Clause 21.13‐6: Local policy for Macedon: maintains and enhances the landscape character of Macedon and the Macedon Ranges, ensures orderly infill development and redevelopment, and provides for limited commercial development in the most appropriate location within the township.

Clause 21.10: Economic Development and Tourism: implements the commercial, retail and services strategies within a defined area, thus preventing fragmentation of land, and excessive residential development in the defined commercial area, and facilitates improvements to the function, design and presentation of Macedon, including its entrances.

Clause 22.01: Macedon Ranges and Surrounds: introduces planning controls to maintain local rural and landscape character in central Macedon. Seeks that


Page 9

development in urban and rural areas be planned to achieve harmony with the natural environment and maintain the generally rural character and high landscape values of the policy area.

2.2 Relevant planning strategies or policies

(i) Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy 2011

This Strategy provides the overarching strategy for urban settlement within the municipality to 2036. The Strategy provides an analysis of the opportunities and constraints, and the capacity for growth within each settlement area. Council advised that “Macedon is identified within the settlement hierarchy as a Small Town (500 – 2,000 residents) with restricted capacity for additional residential development due to its high fire risk, its location within a water supply catchment, the character of the town, protection of native vegetation and a Restructure Overlay that covers most of the township area”.

The Strategy concludes that growth in Macedon township is constrained, that the town’s population should remain static and that no further land is required to be rezoned for residential, commercial or industrial purposes to 2036.

The implementation section of the Strategy identifies the following key issues to consider for Macedon township when reviewing the alignment of zoning and overlays:

infrastructure and constraints

addressing community expectations

managing wildfire risk

protecting important vegetation

respecting town character.

(ii) Macedon Village Centre Study 2014

This study was prepared by Hansen Partnership with the objective of developing a framework plan for the village centre of Macedon township, reproduced as Figure 3. It includes the station and community facilities precincts in addition to the core commercial area affected by the Amendment.


Page 10

Figure 3 Macedon Village Centre Study Framework Plan (from Council Part A submission)

The Panel was advised the study’s community engagement processes included information bulletins and a community workshop/’walkshop’, which identified a ‘rural village character’ that was highly valued by residents of Macedon. Council summarised the character elements that applied to the commercial centre as:

a mix of built form and style with a variety of front setbacks and some vacant sites

predominantly single storey buildings with occasional double storey built form contained within a gabled roofline

a mixture of uses with dwellings (some of which have been adapted for commercial use) among retail and commercial buildings in the Commercial 1 Zone

low to moderate site coverage providing space for soft landscaping

established street trees that contribute strongly to the streetscape

view lines to Mount Macedon enabled by the low scale of buildings and the spaces between them.

It is understood that an economic analysis and bushfire risk analysis contributed to the development of the framework plan. The study’s recommendations covered public realm works, infrastructure improvements to ensure better connectivity, and stronger coordination with other agencies such as VicTrack and VicRoads on key projects.

The study found that the existing zoning regime is logical and no additional commercial zoned land is required. In order to protect the character of the village centre, the study


Page 11

found that design guidance to control built form would be necessary. It recommended that consideration be given to either amending the local policy for Macedon or applying a DDO to land in the village centre area.

The study further found that bushfire risk, while significant, is highest in areas that lie outside the core commercial area and can be managed by the existing Bushfire Management Overlay controls. Building standards for bushfire resilience should be addressed through meeting Bushfire Attack Level ratings rather than through any proposed design guidelines.

(iii) Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016

These Guidelines, developed by Planisphere as an action arising from the Macedon Village Centre Study 2014, provides the core strategic support for Amendment C114. The Guidelines have a narrower focus than the Macedon Village Centre Study, being confined to the area zoned Commercial 1, centred on Victoria Street, between Smith and Bruce Streets.

Also reviewed were Planning Practice Note (PPN) 28: Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions in Planning; PPN59: The Role of Mandatory Provisions in Planning Schemes; and Macedon Property Developments Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2015] VCAT 333 (26 March 2015).

Initial community engagement was conducted through a drop‐in session and a four‐week exhibition process during which 20 submissions were received.

The Guidelines provide a detailed analysis of the recognised ‘spacious and treed’ character of the Macedon in terms of:

building height

lot size and site coverage

front setbacks

fences

materials and colours.

Landscape breaks on private land, in addition to key landscaping elements in the public realm, were identified as elements that contribute to the streetscape character. The Guidelines provided recommended strategies and planning requirements for maintaining each character element’s contribution to the Macedon township commercial centre.

The Guidelines translated these recommendations into a draft schedule to the DDO to be applied to almost all of the Commercial 1 zoned area in Macedon. Council advised the DDO was not applied to a section of the Commercial 1 Zone area that covers part of a residential property at 37 Margaret Street, an unused laneway at the rear of Victoria Street properties, and part of the road reserve in Bruce Street. This section was considered by Council to be outside the core commercial land where the guidelines should apply.

The draft schedule to the DDO in the Guidelines was used as the basis for DDO26 in the Amendment. The Amendment proposes to include the Guidelines as a Reference Document in Clause 21.13‐6 of the Planning Scheme.

The Panel considers the draft schedule should be deleted from the Guidelines to ensure there is no confusion once the Amendment is adopted.


Page 12

(iv) Macedon Property Developments Pty Ltd v Macedon Ranges SC [2015] VCAT 333

This VCAT case concerned a mixed use proposal comprising retail space, 17 dwellings and associated car parking in double storey buildings on the 2,975 square metre corner site at 19 Victoria Street, a key intersection in the commercial centre (Site 1 in Figure 1). The application was refused by Macedon Ranges Shire Council and the applicant sought a review at VCAT of that decision. The decision of Council to refuse the permit was ultimately upheld by VCAT.

In its Part A submission, Council noted:

In affirming the Council decision, the VCAT ruling cited a combination of concerns about built form presentation to the street, inadequate provision of space and landscaping opportunities and poor internal amenity for some apartments. Neighbourhood character issues were central to the case. The VCAT ruling was issued during the period when the Guidelines were being developed. Its findings regarding appropriate built form, height, siting and car parking in the context of the particular character of Macedon is referenced as a strategic input into the drafting of the proposed schedule DDO in the Guidelines.

This Amendment responds appropriately to the matters raised through this VCAT matter, and will ensure greater clarity for the site and commercial area in general moving forward.

(v) Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee

Both Council and the MMRA referred to the Macedon Ranges Protection Advisory Committee (MRPAC) that was appointed to provide advice to the Minister for Planning on appropriate policy to achieve protection of the significant values, attributes and character of the Macedon Ranges, and support changes to the legislative framework. As Council noted:

The MRPAC Report of 27 July 2016 included recommendations regarding a new Macedon Ranges Localised Policy Statement (LPS) and defined settlement boundaries. With regard to Macedon township, the most relevant elements in the Committee’s preferred Localised Policy Statement are as follows:

Objective:

Unplanned urban expansion is a key threat to the Macedon Ranges. Manage population growth by directing urban development to a hierarchy of settlements and protect the township and rural character, their landscape features and surrounds.

Implementation Strategies:

Short

Facilitate and reinforce the growth of settlements in accordance with their role identified in adopted structure plans and the settlement strategy.

Protect and maintain the significant heritage characteristics of towns and settlements including street tree plantings.


Page 13

Ongoing

Avoid bushfire and flood risk by limiting expansion of settlements in high risk locations.

The Panel is aware that the implementation and outcomes of the MRPAC are ongoing. While the MMRA suggested this Amendment be deferred until this work is finalised, the Panel does not support that position, and concludes that given the strategic planning program of the Council, there will always be ongoing strategic review. It is not practical to delay consideration and approval of one Amendment while other work is occurring.

2.3 Planning scheme provisions

The Amendment affects land in the Commercial 1 Zone, where the key purpose are:

To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.

To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.

The Commercial 1 Zone is impacted by the Bushfire Management Overlay, where the key purposes are:

To ensure that the development of land prioritises the protection of human life and strengthens community resilience to bushfire.

To identify areas where the bushfire hazard warrants bushfire protection measures to be implemented.

To ensure development is only permitted where the risk to life and property from bushfire can be reduced to an acceptable level.

An application under the Bushfire Management Overlay must be referred under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the person or body specified as the referral authority in Clause 66.03, unless a schedule to this overlay specifies otherwise. In this regard, any application must be referred to the CFA.

The Commercial 1 Zone is further impacted by the Restructure Overlay, specifically, Schedule 10, where the key purposes are:

To identify old and inappropriate subdivisions which are to be restructured.

To preserve and enhance the amenity of the area and reduce the environmental impacts of dwellings and other development.

A permit is required to subdivide land, or to construct or extend a dwelling or other building, and must be in accordance with a restructure plan for the land listed in a schedule to this overlay. Schedule 10 to the Restructure Overlay affects land to the east of the Calder Highway, covering generally the Mt. Macedon and Macedon areas.


Page 14

2.4 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

On 24 May 2017, DELWP released a revised version of the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The Panel has not completed a full review of the Amendment in accordance with the revised Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes, nor did it ask the Council to do so. For example, one of the matters the Council needs to reconcile is to review the design objectives as per the revised Direction, where it stipulates a maximum of five objectives. The Panel has not, and did not consider it appropriate to undertake that type of review. This further review should be undertaken by Council following consideration of the Panel’s recommendations as part of the finalisation of the process, and the Panel has recommended accordingly.

The Amendment is generally consistent with Ministerial Direction 11 (Strategic Assessment Guidelines).

Council advised Planning Practice Note PPN28 ‐ Using the Neighbourhood Character Provisions in Planning (July 2004) was considered during the development of the Guidelines, and concluded it was not the appropriate tool for a commercial area. Council submitted “The practice note describes the DDO as being appropriately applied to promote specific urban design outcomes for a particular site or area.”

Planning Practice Note PPN59 – The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes (June 2015) is relevant to this Amendment, and is discussed in further detail in Chapter 3.

2.5 Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. The Amendment is well founded and is strategically justified, subject to addressing the more specific issues as discussed in Chapter 3.


Page 15

3 Form of the Amendment

The key issues relate to resolution of the form of the Amendment and drafting of DDO26, including:

Heights and upper level setbacks

setbacks and site coverage

property boundaries

other drafting changes.

The Panel considers that Council has undertaken a well‐considered process for the Amendment and as mentioned, it has adopted the version of DDO26 endorsed by Council at its meeting on 22 March 2017 as its starting point.

There was in the main, general endorsement of the intent of the Amendment by submitters to ensure that commercial development is confined to the Commercial 1 Zone, and that design guidelines appropriately guide future development in that zone. The key issue is that some submitters feel that the Amendment did not go far enough, while others did not support the mandated setbacks or site coverage. Some suggested the Amendment not proceed until all issues are fully resolved, but the Panel considers it would be not useful if the matters in contention, which are minor, could not be reconciled through this process.

3.1 Heights and upper level setbacks

(i) Issue

DDO26 provides for mandatory heights under Design Requirements where Version 2 notes:

Buildings must not exceed two storeys. Building height must not exceed 8 metres above natural ground level, unless the roof pitch exceeds 30 degrees, in which case the height must not exceed 9 metres above natural ground level. A permit cannot be granted for proposals which vary this requirement.

Further, DDO26 seeks to mandate seconds storeys to be setback five metres from the frontage (if not incorporated within the roof form).

(ii) Submissions

Council provided an assessment of the mandatory controls for building height and site coverage against PPN59 – The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes (June 2015) in its Part A submission. Recognising the DDO is the most appropriate tool for the expression of mandatory built form requirements, implementation and support for mandatory controls should be based on exceptional circumstances to provide certainty in areas where there are strong and consistent themes to ensure a preferred outcome.

The mandatory provisions are proposed to apply to building height only. Building height must not exceed two storeys, nor must it exceed eight metres above natural ground level, unless the roof pitch exceeds 30 degrees, in which case the height must not exceed nine metres above natural ground level. These are clear and measurable elements. Council advised:


Page 16

Proposed DDO26 meets the PN59 criteria by implementing a limited number of mandatory controls where the existing controls (default Commercial 1 provisions) permit buildings of a scale and form that would be contrary to the design objectives.

Council argued the design objectives are strategically supported by the Guidelines through DDO26, and further noted:

The mandatory controls meet other criteria laid out in PN59 in that they

will be appropriate to the majority of likely proposals

provide for the preferred outcome where there are divergent opinions within the community …

apply where there is real evidence of development exceeding the proposed control and where they will reduce administrative costs.

Some other submissions indicated they would like to see a greater number of mandatory provisions than those that have been included (ie for setbacks).

While Mr Leonello was represented by Calibre, he made a further submission and questioned how the heights should be measured. He noted DDO26 was not clear on whether it should be measured ‘above ground level’ or at ‘natural ground level’, and questioned whether the natural ground level is from the site or the footpath. Mr Smallwood reiterated this opinion, and expressed concern about the extent of cut and fill if natural ground level was to be achieved.

While most submissions were generally supportive of the Amendment, Mr Phair questioned the timing of the Amendment in the context of local Government elections and emphasised the need for more mandatory controls. He suggested the Amendment will ‘soften’ the existing planning controls for Macedon.

Centrum Town Planning expressed no objection to the building height limits of eight to nine metres, but did not support it measured as storeys. In this regard, its submission noted:

We believe that it is the height and form of a building that has the greatest impact on the appearance of a building, not the number of levels. Good design may successfully incorporate a third level in a roof form, or a mezzanine level, that is entirely appropriate from a character perspective.

The submission questioned whether the proposed mandatory requirement for storeys might preclude a well‐designed three‐storey building within a nine metre height envelope. Further, the submission questioned the mandatory five metre setback for a second storey and considered it excessive, especially in the context of a significant development site such as at 19 Victoria Street.

(iii) Discussion and findings

The Panel considers the application of the DDO is the correct tool to determine building height, and that Schedule 26 does this appropriately. Further, due to the unique nature of Macedon, the low‐rise scale of existing buildings, limited opportunities for growth, the potential and risk of bushfire, and the availability of land for further development, it


Page 17

presents a number of special circumstances where height controls could, and should be mandatory.

PPN60 Height and setback controls for activity centres (June 2015), while particularly relevant for land in the Activity Centre Zone, provides guidance about whether heights should be expressed in storeys or metres. Under ‘Statutory implementation of height and setback controls’, apart from noting the DDO is the preferred planning instrument for implementing discretionary and mandatory building heights and setbacks (albeit on an interim basis or at neighbourhood centres), PPN60 notes:

The preferred expression of heights and setbacks is in metres and should be in reference to a defined point such as the footpath at the frontage or Australia Height Datum. If height is measured in terms of storeys, this should be expressed in relation to a preferred height provision of metres as well.

DDO26 provides for three Key Opportunity Sites, but given the scale of building already in the town centre, the Panel considers it is appropriate to stipulate an eight or nine metre height in a two‐storey built form for the whole of the town centre.

While the Panel supports mandatory building heights in Macedon, it does not support the mandatory setbacks for second storeys. The Panel agrees that while second storeys should be setback, five metres is a significant setback. Much could be achieved in terms of articulation and interest if the setback ranged from three to five metres. Achieving a good design outcome is the critical factor in any development proposal, and while mandatory heights are supported, mandatory minimum setbacks for second storeys are not.

The Panel has made its changes to DDO26 to reflect its findings and recommendations with regard to height and upper level setbacks in Appendix 2.

3.2 Setbacks and site coverage

(i) Issue

Map 1 of DDO26 provides for preferred zero front setback, or three metre front and/or side setbacks. Unlike heights, these are generally expressed as ‘should’, but the first clause under Building siting under Design Requirements says “Required setbacks from street frontages …”.

Further, DDO26 notes that buildings must not exceed 50 per cent site coverage of an allotment.

(ii) Submissions

With regard to the proposed setbacks, Council noted:

Front, side and rear setback controls are also given very clear direction in order to meet the objectives but are expressed in discretionary terms (‘should’ rather than ‘must’) to allow some flexibility for design solutions to achieve the objectives. For example, a variation on the requirement for a zero front setback might be warranted on a site with a long frontage so that guidelines for articulated building frontages and canopy tree provision can be met,


Page 18

resulting in most of the frontage being built to the footpath but sections set back further.

Some submitters were concerned about the different setbacks proposed for different parts of Victoria Street. Calibre Consulting made a submission in support of Mr Leonello at the Hearing, and noted the variation in setbacks lack continuity and rhythm, and have been applied in their opinion, without strategic justification. Calibre noted that the proposed changes:

… conflict with the intent of the zone and will result in an inappropriate design outcome that will not be in keeping with the existing character of the township and therefore the proposed Design and Development Overlay should be adjusted accordingly.

Its submission noted the existing mix of commercial and residential buildings have varying setbacks ranging from zero to eight to nine metres, noting that the southern side of Victoria Street has a lesser defined built form character than the remainder of the centre. While noting the setbacks are expressed as preferred, Calibre submitted that the northern side of Victoria Street lends itself more to a zero setback than the southern side.

Calibre argued that “… the character be reinforced by provisions that actually seek to encourage a mix of active or landscaped frontages along the entire length of Victoria Street. These provisions would at once support the purpose of the Commercial 1 Zone, and also seek to retain the Macedon commercial area’s identified sense of character.” In his further submission, Mr Leonello reiterated these points.

While commending Council for its work on this Amendment, Mr Fitt questioned the requirement for buildings fronting Victoria Street, between Margaret and Smith Street to be built to the front boundary.

Calibre further questioned the introduction of a maximum site coverage of 50 per cent, and argued this “… will reduce the ability for many lots within this area to be developed for a mix and variety of uses, or for any new sized commercial premises to be developed”.

Centrum Town Planning questioned some of the references to character, and suggested that the Key Opportunity Site at 19 Victoria Street does not have any character, and the intent of the DDO should be to achieve a preferred neighbourhood character.


The Panel supports the application of DDO26 as the correct tool to consider setbacks and that these should be expressed as preferred.

The Panel is not convinced that the setbacks indicated in Map 1 of DDO26 are sufficiently robust, particularly on the south side of Victoria Street between Smith and Margaret Streets. There is no prevailing urban character in this particular area, and it is likely that if developed, it would form its own and define a new character. Given the large area of land relative to the remaining parts of Victoria Street, potential design outcomes should not be fettered by a zero front setback at this stage. Nor should that part of Margaret Street abutting 19 Victoria Street.


Page 19

Map 1 of DDO26 should be amended to include a new legend for the area along 19 Victoria Street through to Smith Street to read “undefined”.

Further, the term ‘required’ should be changed to ‘preferred’ to avoid any doubt in relation to the first design requirement under setbacks in DDO26.

The Panel notes the setbacks are not mandatory and should be used as a guide for any future development applications, where each can be assessed on merit.

As with the setbacks, the Panel considers the site coverage provision should be preferred, not mandatory.

The Panel has made its changes to DDO26 to reflect its findings and recommendations with regard to setbacks and site coverage in Appendix 2.

3.3 Property boundaries

(i) Issue

There is an anomaly in that part of Margaret Street included in the Commercial 1 Zone that is not subject to DDO26.

The property boundaries that are provided in Map 1 to DDO26 are not consistent with the zone boundary and the application of DDO26.

(ii) Submissions

The Panel was advised that part of 37 Margaret Street shows one lot in two zones, that being the Commercial 1 Zone (a small part of the southern portion abutting 22 Victoria Street) and the Low Density Residential Zone (most of the property with west and north abuttals to Margaret and Elliott Streets respectively). DDO26 does not apply to that part of the land in the Commercial 1 Zone and this has created an unintended anomaly. It would appear from Figure 2 in this report that that part of the land in the Commercial 1 Zone is occupied by a dwelling.

While the land in question is unlikely to be developed for commercial purposes, it does require a corrections Amendment.

Council advised that it has not had the opportunity to speak to the owner of the site and that it would not be appropriate to use this Amendment to correct the anomaly. Likewise, Council agrees that it is not appropriate to apply DDO26 over the whole of the Commercial 1 zoned site in that location.

The Panel further observed at the Hearing that the property boundaries as indicated on the zone plan are not consistent with those shown on Map 1 in DDO26. These need to be rectified. Mr Smallwood questioned whether the boundaries were correct on Key Opportunity Development Site 2.


The Panel considers Council should undertake a corrections Amendment after appropriate discussion and notice to the owner of the property at 37 Margaret Street. That Amendment


Page 20

should seek to rezone that part of 37 Margaret Street currently in the Commercial 1 Zone to the Low Density Residential Zone.

Additionally, Council should ensure that the lot boundaries as shown on Map 1 in DDO26, particularly on the north‐east side of Victoria Street are consistent with the zone boundaries.

The Panel has made its changes to DDO26 to reflect its findings and recommendations with regard to property boundaries in Appendix 2.

3.4 Other drafting changes

(i) Issue

The MMRA made numerous suggested changes to the wording of DDO26 and to a lesser extent, Clause 21.13‐6. One suggestion was that the map to Clause 21.13‐6 be amended to show the boundary of the Macedon Village Town Centre within the wider designated Town Centre.

Council recommended a change to the Explanatory Report that was exhibited with the Amendment.

Centrum Town Planning questioned the provision of large canopy trees within the rear and side setbacks at a ratio of one tree for each 200 square metres of site area.

Other components of DDO26 use the word ‘must’ instead of ‘should’ (for example under Clause 2.0 Design Requirements: building design, fences, landscaping).

(ii) Submissions

At the Hearing, the Panel asked Council whether DDO26 in particular had been ‘road tested’ with Council’s statutory planners. Mr Schier commented that there was consultation with the statutory planners prior to the Amendment being finalised, and advised through its the Part A submission:

During preparation of the amendment documents, feedback on drafts of the proposed Clause 21.13‐6 local policy and DDO26 was provided by Council’s statutory planners and municipal building inspector. This resulted in some changes to the draft schedule to the DDO that was provided in the Guidelines document in order to:

provide greater clarity for statutory planners in assessing applications;

avoid potential conflicts or between the planning provisions and the building code; and

avoid potential conflicts between DDO26 and the provisions of the Bushfire Management Overlay.

The MMRA submission noted “The Association supports the amendment and its purpose, but request drafting changes”. Further, “… C114 has potential for excellence, not only in a Macedon context, but in a State context”. However, due to changes at the State policy level, the MRPAC report and recommendations, and new VicSmart provisions amongst other issues, the MMRA requested that the Panel consider delivering an interim report.


Page 21

While some of the changes proposed by MMRA had merit, Council rebutted some these. Council considered its research and thoroughness in preparing the Amendment, and in providing Version 2 of DDO26 as a response to the issues raised in the original submissions, and advised nothing further could be gained by any other changes. In its closing, Council noted that it would be further guided by the findings and recommendations of the Panel about the other suggestions made by the MMRA.

In response to two submissions that Clause 22.01 and Statement of State Planning Policy No. 8 were not properly addressed, Council requested that the Explanatory Report be amended to include an additional reference to Clause 22.01 as follows:

Clause 22.01 (Macedon Ranges and Surrounds): The amendment implements the following policy within this clause by introducing planning controls to maintain local rural and landscape character in central Macedon:

Development to be permitted in urban and rural areas must be planned to achieve harmony with the natural environment and to maintain both the generally rural character and high landscape values of the policy area.

The amendment has been assessed against other elements of policy within this clause and is not regarded as being in conflict with them.

In relation to the canopy trees, Centrum Town Planning argued that this requirement would result in the need to provide approximately 15 trees on the site at 19 Victoria Street, and said:

Whilst we support the use of canopy trees in the Town Centre, we believe that the location of the tress should allow for performance based outcomes that do not limit the siting of trees to the subject site. For example, the planting of new street trees in Victoria and Margaret Streets by a developer would most likely have far greater amenity and shade benefits for visitors and the community than if these trees were located behind buildings on private land.


The suggested wording changes need to be assessed and tested against the robustness of the intent of the Amendment, and whether further changes add value to the overall intent of what is sought to be achieved. This includes amending some of the ‘musts’ under Clause 2.0 to ‘should’, as the various design requirements are not to be included as mandatory controls.

While the MMRA noted that it was “… very aware there are high community expectations for C114”, the Panel considers ten submissions, of which three had no objection, and the remaining submissions seeking various changes, a very low rate of concern in relation to the Amendment. The Panel acknowledges the VCAT case did give rise to concern about the future built form of Macedon, and Council had addressed this by proceeding with this Amendment.

Because of the nature of this Amendment, it is not proposed to go through and comment on each of the suggested wording changes, however, the Panel acknowledges that some of its


Page 22

recommended changes are as a result of the submissions made by MMRA. In particular, these include:

new permit trigger to lop, remove or destroy canopy trees

changing the name of the ‘Macedon Village Centre’ to ‘Macedon Village Commercial Centre’ to better define it

ensuring the heights recognise the existing low scale, predominantly single storey built form of the centre

confirming the conditions regarding the use of timber as a building material.

The Panel commends Council for ‘road testing’ the Amendment with other officers in Council and notes that as an outcome, relevant changes were incorporated into the exhibited version of DDO26, which in the opinion of the Panel, has led to a better outcome.

The Panel considers amendment of the map in Clause 21.13‐6 has merit as it will ensure that the commercial centre is properly defined in the Municipal Strategic Statement.

With regard to the request by Council to include a new reference to Clause 22.01 in the Explanatory Report, the Panel questioned that at both the Directions Hearing and the Hearing. Council was insistent that this continue to be amended and recommended accordingly. The purpose of the Explanatory Report is to assist interested parties understand the context of a proposed Amendment. The inclusion does not change the context of the Amendment, nor is it technically part of the Amendment that is under the ambit of the Panel’s consideration. It is a matter for Council to resolve with DELWP during the finalisation stage. Notwithstanding, the Panel notes this Clause as part of its consideration of local policy in Chapter 2.1.

The Panel considers the overarching requirement to planting canopy trees to be a good outcome, but the siting is a matter that can be dealt with at any planning permit application stage, where there will be a requirement to prepare a full and considered landscape plan as part of an application. It is not appropriate to prescribe how many trees should be provided through this overlay, except to ensure that there is an onus to provide landscaping and canopy trees, especially on Key Opportunity Sites.

The Panel has made its changes to DDO26 to reflect its findings and recommendations with regard to other drafting changes in Appendix 2.

3.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

Amend the Map ‘Macedon Town Structure Plan’ at Clause 21.13 to include the 1.boundary of the Macedon Village Commercial Centre in the box labelled ‘Town Centre’.

Amend Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 (Version 2, 22 March 2017), 2.subject to the further modifications as provided in Appendix 2.

Ensure that the lot boundaries in Map 1 of Design and Development Overlay 3.Schedule 26 are consistent with the lot boundaries in the relevant zone and overlay maps.


Page 23

Amend Map 1 to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26 to: 4.a) provide a further setback option for the area along 19 Victoria Street

through to Smith Street, and along Margaret Street abutting 19 Victoria Street to read “undefined”

b) add the word “preferred” in front of the words ‘zero’ and ‘3 metre’ in the legend.

Delete the draft Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay from the 5.Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016.

Consider undertaking a corrections Amendment to rezone the northern part of 6.the property at 37 Margaret Street Macedon (that is not proposed to be included in Design and Development Overlay Schedule 26) from the Commercial 1 Zone to the Low Density Residential Zone.

Review the provisions and schedules of the Amendment during finalisation to 7.ensure it is consistent with the revised Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes (May 2017).


Appendices

Appendix A Document list

No. Date Description Tabled by

1 2 May 2017 VCAT decision Philip Schier of Council

2 23 May 2017 Macedon Ranges Settlement Strategy 2011 “

3 “ Council Part A submission “

4 30 May 2017 Council Part B submission “

5 “ Council slides “

6 “ Map of location of submitters “

7 “ Macedon Ranges Residents Association submission Christine Pruneau

8 “ Calibre submission for Joe Leonella Fiona Slechten

9 “ photographs “

10 “ Yarra Ranges Design and Development Overlay 14 “

11 “ Southern Grampians Design and Development Overlay 8 “

12 “ Submission Joe Leonella

13 “ Macedon/Mt Macedon Community Plan “

14 “ Letter from Mt Macedon and Macedon Business and Tourism Association to Hansen Consultants

“


Appendices

Appendix B Panel version of DDO26 (This is based on Version 2 of the DDO, as provided by Council at its meeting on 22 March 2017, which was used at the hearing for discussion purposes.)

Panel Tracked Added

Panel Tracked Deleted

SCHEDULE 26 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO26.

MACEDON VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTRE

The commercial centre of Macedon has a distinct village character with eclectic building forms. This character will be retained and enhanced by new development that reflects the primarily single storey scale and low to moderate building site coverage. Buildings will incorporate muted earthy tones, will be constructed with masonry/brick and will have articulation and separation to integrate well with the existing and future streetscape. Building design and setbacks will provide interest, shelter and shade, activation to the pedestrian environment and retain views of treed areas and Mt Macedon and the ranges beyond the village. Existing and new trees will add to the visual amenity, shade and streetscape character.

1.0 Design objectives (needs to be reviewed and consolidated to five only)

To retain and strengthen the small scale village character of Macedon.

To ensure new development integrates with the predominantly low‐scale, single storey streetscape and retains views of the surrounding features.

To ensure commercial developments are sensitively sited to:

reflect existing siting patterns and setback from residential and other sensitive interfaces; and

maintain views beyond the village to treed areas and Mt Macedon and the ranges.

To promote development that contributes to safe and vibrant public places.

To ensure the use of building colours, materials, textures and finishes that integrate with existing design elements.

To maintain and enhance the existing canopy tree and landscaped provision character within the village centre Macedon Village Commercial Centre.

To avoid the removal of established large canopy trees and encourage the planting of new canopy trees and vegetation within front and side setbacks, and avoid the removal of established large canopy trees.

To ensure the adequate provision of on‐site car parking and loading areas that avoid negative visual and amenity impacts.

To avoid ensure dominant and intrusive business identification and other signage, and discourage including signage above building eaves, is avoided.

To ensure new developments are have been assessed against the relevant bushfire risk.

To ensure the development of key opportunity sites is consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character of the village.

2.0 Buildings and works

A permit is not required for:

--/--/---- Proposed C114

--/--/---- Proposed C114

--/--/----Proposed C114


Appendices

The installation of an automatic teller machine.

An alteration to an existing building facade provided:

The alteration does not include the installation of an external roller shutter.

At least 80 per cent of the building facade at ground level is maintained as an entry or window with clear glazing or no less than the current area of glazing.

An awning that projects over a road reserve if it is authorised by the relevant public land manager and does not negatively impact on the structure or health of a street tree.

A permit is required to construct a front fence.

Design Requirements

Building Height

Buildings must not exceed two storeys. Building height must not exceed 8 eight metres above natural ground level (as measured at any part of the site), unless the roof pitch exceeds 30 degrees, in which case the height must not exceed 9 nine metres above natural ground level. A permit cannot be granted for proposals which vary this requirement.

Limit the height of New buildings should present as to single storey forms to the street with second storeys recessed at least 5 three to five metres from the frontage or incorporated within the roof form (e.g. attic style or dormer windows but not mansard).

Use of attic style designs must should ensure roof pitch does not visually impact on adjoining properties.

Figure 1 ‐ Maximum Height Diagram

Building siting

Preferred Required setbacks from street frontages are shown on Map 1 below.

Buildings fronting the north side of Victoria Street between Margaret and Smith Streets should be built to the front boundary and must incorporate active frontages.

Buildings fronting all other street and side street setbacks should have a zero front setback or be a minimum three 3 metres from the front boundary, and include a mix of active frontages, landscaping or and where possible, outdoor dining within the front setback.

All new Buildings should be set back a minimum of two metres from at least one side boundary to provide spacing between buildings.

All Buildings should be set back a minimum five 5 metres from rear boundaries where the site adjoins a residential zone.


Appendices

Site coverage

Buildings must should not exceed 50 per cent site coverage of an allotment, unless it can be demonstrated that superior built form design outcomes can be achieved.

Building design

Orientate Buildings should:

Be oriented to front the street and incorporate customer entrances, clear glazing and articulation to activate frontages.

Incorporate eaves and verandas as appropriate, particularly where there is a zero front setback and where negative impacts on the structure or health of a street tree can be avoided, to provide weather protection and to be consistent with the existing Macedon Village Commercial Centre character.

Incorporate masonry and timber finishes and materials to reflect the existing character. Masonry includes brick, rendered cement and stone. All finishes and materials Any use of timber must be shown to meet bushfire risk requirements.

Incorporate muted, earthy tones that integrate with the surrounding built form and landscape character. Bold or bright colours are discouraged.

Avoid long blank walls at street level as they reduce active street edges and passive surveillance. Where blank walls cannot be avoided, incorporate art forms and/or outdoor kerb side dining to activate the space.

Avoid visible expanses of flat roof and support varied roof form (e.g. hipped or gabled).

Incorporate Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) design elements including water and energy efficiency, natural ventilation and passive solar design where possible.

All Habitable rooms must should have openable windows. Avoid the replacement of windows

with skylights or light wells.

Ensure Building design and construction should does not impact the established canopy street trees along Victoria Street and minimises encroachment within the tree protection zone.

Fences

Front fences must should be no more than 1.0 metre in height, and provide at least 50 per cent transparency, and be consistent with existing fences and streetscape character.

Access

Locate car parking at the side or rear of buildings. Set garages and car ports associated with new developments at least 5 five metres back from the front of the building.

Provide access ways from the side streets (where possible) and limit to one single crossover per lot.

Design parking and vehicle access, including loading areas, to ensure safe circulation and access for all forms of movement including pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchairs and motor vehicles.

Landscaping

Retain or incorporate landscaping and canopy trees into the siting of new developments and within the front setbacks of sites where a street setback is provided as shown on Map 1.

The front setback area must should be sufficient to allow trees to reach maturity without compromising building or drainage works.

Bushfire

Design all new buildings with clear and direct access to the street for pedestrians and

vehicles.

Key Opportunity Sites


Appendices

In addition to the above requirements, Key Opportunity Sites (as shown on Map 1) must should also address the following:

Avoid excessive cut and fill measures by Designing all buildings to utilise the existing topography and follow the contours of the site,. except where necessary to achieve a zero front setback at footpath level in accordance with the building siting requirements of this schedule.

Maximise second storey balconies and glazing facing streets to encourage passive surveillance opportunities of the street and provide articulation. The balance of windows and doors must should also reflect the existing streetscape character.

Avoid bulky and unarticulated developments and long single frontages that do not provide vertical articulation or breaks in built form. This can be achieved along street frontages by providing recesses for window and doors, alternating building materials and using design features that enhance vertical articulation.

Avoid large areas of at grade car parking visible from local streets by locating car parks to the rear of the building. Access to car parks must be clearly signed and located from a side street, where possible.

Provide for large canopy trees within the rear and side setbacks at a ratio of one tree for each 200 square metres of site area.as part of a comprehensive landscape plan.

3.0 Advertising signs

All signs requiring a permit under any other provision of this planning scheme should meet the following:

Business signs must should be designed to integrate with the building and avoid visual dominance of the streetscape.

Locate signs below the front parapet or beneath the building eave. Roof top signs, freestanding signs and signs projecting above the fascia of the verandah are discouraged.

Avoid internally illuminated or flashing signs and signs that cover glazed areas.

4.0 Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 43.02‐5 and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

The design objectives of this schedule.

The buildings and works design requirements of this schedule.

Whether the siting, form, height, massing and design of the proposed buildings and works, including fencing, will be in keeping with the village centre character.

The ability of the development to provide the space for the retention or planting of canopy trees and other vegetation.

The ability of the development to provide views beyond the village to treed areas and Mt Macedon and the ranges.

Whether the proposal achieves a high quality design outcome and implements sustainable development principles.

Details of how the proposed building contributes to public safety and the amenity of the streetscape.

A development application must be accompanied by a report explaining how the proposal addresses these decision guidelines. If in the opinion of the responsible authority the need to provide the above information is not relevant to the evaluation of an application, it may waive or reduce the requirement.

--/--/---- Proposed C114

--/--/---- Proposed C114


Appendices

Insert the word ‘preferred’ in front of the legend for the Zero and 3 metre front setbacks.

Under setbacks, provide a third notation for the area along 19 Victoria Street through to Smith Street, and along Margaret Street abutting 19 Victoria Street to read “undefined”.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 · 2017. 7. 31. · 5. Delete the draft Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay from the Macedon Urban Design Guidelines 2016. 6. Consider

Documents