collie_BLOG

A new community to the west of Melbourne, Tenterfield is now home to over 3500 people in an area of about over 108 hectares.

Collie was involved from the beginning of the project providing VicUrban, the developer, with planning, urban design and landscape architecture services. Collie tasks included:

• statutory planning inputs including preparation of amendment documents to facilitate a rezoning, representation of the client at a panel hearing and preparation of all permit applications;
• urban design in respect of development concepts and then a subdivision layout including lot types, lot mix, lot layout and road patterns and areas set aside for public open space;
• organisation of investigations of soil conditions, flora and fauna significance and archeological issues;
• a landscape assessment report, masterplan and landscape plans;
• WSUD design of swales, wetlands and related elements including a new and landscaped main watercourse feature;
• feasibility and budgeting cost indications;
• agreements and approvals from various stakeholders including Melton Shire Council, Melbourne Water and the Wurrundjeri.

Awards

• UDIA 2009 National Awards for Excellence: Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing
• UDIA (Vic) 2008 Awards for Excellence: Award for Excellence in Affordable Housing
• UDIA (Vic) 2007 Awards for Excellence: Residential Development of more than 250 Lots
• PIA 2005 Awards for Planning Excellence: Commendation for Environmental Planning and Conservation

Click here for more [PDF]

View Larger Map

Landscape construction work has commenced at Davis Park, in Moorookyle, Tarneit, which is a local neighbourhood park incorporating a number of elements of historical interest while responding to recreational needs, drainage requirements and environmental sustainable re-vegetation goals.

Historical Background and Approvals
A favourable assessment of the Werribee Plains (to the west of Melbourne) in 1824 resulted in the region surrounding Davis Park being one of the first areas utilised for grazing after the arrival of Europeans in the 1830s. Pastoralists began to settle in the area in the 1850s and during the 1890s large estates were subdivided for farming purposes.

A number of features associated with a complex of domestic buildings are still present in a section of Davis Park known as the heritage zone, including bluestone foundations and a section of wall, one tank stand and two wells.

In the heritage zones, Heritage Victoria has required careful excavation and construction practices and the onsite presence of a heritage consultant while work is carried out.

Park Design
Davis Park has been designed to showcase a number of historical elements, thereby creating a link between the park and current residents. The design approach is to translate the typical historical agricultural landscape of the western plains into a contemporary design with historic references – the old homestead overlooking the grassed paddock, wind breaking vegetation and low fences framing the landscape.

The old blue stone walls of the dwelling / out building will be partially reconstructed with careful repairs carried out to ensure safety and improve visibility. An orchard of fruit trees extends into the heritage zone, referencing past pastoral farming in a contemporary design element. Adjacent to the picnic node a herb garden is proposed. Indigenous and native plants surround the heritage zone and picnic node creating a drought tolerant landscape with habitat for native birdlife. At its core the park is a retarding basin which is designed to slow stormwater runoff during storm events and function as an open grassed area with cricket pitch when dry.

A granitic sand path will wind around the core, connecting two exercise stations within Davis Park with another six exercise stations strategically located within the Moorooklye open space network to form the Moorookyle exercise track.

Davis Park is a multi-dimensional space which endeavors to respond to the complexity of heritage requirements, recreation needs, drainage infrastructure requirements and environmentally sustainable re-vegetation goals.

Collie was pleased to see the opening of the medical centre at 300 Cooper Street Epping.

Collie provided planning and landscape architecture services for the medical and specialist centre at 300 Cooper Street, Epping. The proposed development on the vacant site included a medical centre (accommodating 90 medical practitioners) within a three-storey building as well as an associated café, pharmacy, gymnasium, optometrist and general office space. The proposal represents a landmark development within the Cooper Street Employment Area.

Collie involvement comprised planning advice on the initial design and expected planning process, preparation and submission of the planning permit application, preparation of a landscape plan and discussions with Whittlesea City Council and VicRoads to facilitate the assessment process.

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE
There are 7 differences in the two pictures below. See how long it takes you to find them all!

Frustrated with the rezoning process? So are we! The time is ripe for radical changes to the planning scheme amendment (PSA) process. The State government has announced a review of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – including the provisions regarding amendments to planning schemes.

So what changes to the system might make a difference?

INTRODUCTION
There are many frustrations with the PSA process. Proponents, Councils, government departments and the community often all get caught up in the tortuous tentacles of a PSA. From authorisation to exhibition; submissions to panel hearings; adoption to gazettal. There are more twists and turns than with Gary Ablett Junior.

ISSUES
Without labouring every deficiency in the process, here is a summary of four key areas of concern – followed by a few ideas for fixing them.

1           Delays and Uncertainty
The proponent of an amendment (where they are not the planning authority) needs the support of the planning authority (usually the Council). This enables the Council to request ‘authorisation’ from the Minister for Planning to prepare the amendment.

Just gaining the strategic support of the planning authority to consider the amendment can take months – sometimes years! If the Council does not even want to entertain the possibility of the amendment then the proponent has no option to appeal that view. Unless the proponent can convince the Minister for Planning to deal with the amendment directly then the proposal has no hope of even being exhibited.

A Council may decide to conditionally support an amendment – sometimes with onerous or unreasonable strings attached. The requirement of Council to enter into a Section 173 Agreement dealing with development contributions is often a classic tactic aimed at extracting as much as possible from a proponent at a point in the process where the Council knows it clearly has the upper hand. The lack of an appeal right puts the proponent of an amendment at a distinct disadvantage. They can be effectively held to ‘ransom’.

A Council also has the ability to abandon an amendment at any time in the process – even if a panel recommends in support of a PSA. This creates enormous uncertainty and is unfair to a proponent who may have invested significant time and resources in preparing the amendment, negotiating with stakeholders, presenting at panel hearings and so on.

Whilst not all Councils create major problems or delays, we detect a growing trend that is cause for concern.

2           Authorisation is a Waste of Time
The ‘authorisation’ of a PSA was purportedly intended to eliminate those amendments that went all the way through the system only to fall over at the very end because the proposal was inconsistent with State planning policy. This was a nice idea in theory however, in reality few PSA were actually contrary to State planning policy.

The authorisation process has captured hundreds of amendments therefore, for which authorisation is not necessary. Moreover, authorisation has morphed into an ever increasing detailed assessment of the amendment – often to be repeated at the other end of the process prior to approval. What was meant to be a ‘quick’ two week review has become several months of protracted interdepartmental hand passing. For what value?

3           Consideration of Irrelevant Submissions
Anyone can make a submission to a PSA. Sometimes irrelevant or vexatious submissions can significantly delay the planning process. Sometimes submitters raise matters that would normally be dealt with in the detailed design of a permit application following the PSA. The current system requires the planning authority to consider all submissions and, where the amendment is not modified in accordance with the submission, to refer them to an independent panel for review.

It would seem appropriate that some form of initial sorting of the submissions would help to clarify and define the scope of Panel hearings. This could reduce the hearing time needed for a panel – and in some cases could eliminate the need for a panel altogether.

4           Planning Authority can Ignore Panel Reports
When an independent panel completes its report it refers it back to the planning authority. Its recommendations are not binding on the planning authority. In many instances, the PSA is adopted with some but not all of the panel recommendations. The community and the proponent are often confused by this response – particularly when the planning authority has been one of the key players during the hearing. The planning authority is both a participant in the panel and then a decision maker regarding its recommendations. This potentially undermines the purpose and credibility of the independent panel process and is counter to transparent decision making.

A 4-POINT PLAN
1           Minister for Planning to Co-ordinate all PSA

It is almost back to the future but the preparation of all PSA through the Minister for Planning (DPCD) would:

• eliminate the need for a separate authorisation process;
• ensure greater consistency of the use of the Victoria Planning Provisions when preparing a PSA;
• eliminate the local politics and ‘ransom’;
• provide potential for greater accountability for timelines for processing PSAs.

The preparation of PSA through the Minister for Planning would also help to ensure greater integration of metropolitan planning policy in Melbourne. Perhaps a metropolitan planning authority could have the responsibility for preparing all PSA? The idea of a metropolitan planning authority has merit on a number of fronts – but that is a topic for another issue of the coll-e-bulletin.

Where amendments were requested by third parties, Councils would be consulted during the exhibition phase and they would need to defend their support or concerns at an independent panel hearing.

The Minister could have a prescribed time to exhibit a proposed PSA or refuse to exhibit a PSA.

2           Directions Hearing to Consider Submissions
Eliminate irrelevant or vexatious submissions at a directions hearing prior to the panel hearing. The directions hearing could also clarify the pertinent issues to be addressed at the panel hearing – rather than every party essentially repeating their original submission. This would help streamline the hearing process and be of more value to the panel.

3           Panel Reports to Minister
Another advantage of the Minister as the planning authority for all PSA is that the panel reports go directly to the Minister (rather than effectively via Council as is presently the case). This eliminates the second bite at the cherry.
Where the Minister decides to reject or vary recommendations of a panel report he or she should be compelled to provide written reasons for the variations.

4           Abandoning Amendments
The Minister should only be able to abandon a PSA at the request of the proponent. This would eliminate local political interference and ensure a transparent process for all.

CONCLUSION
We know that implementing this 4-point plan will not solve all the problems of the PSA process – but it could be a useful start. Let us know what you think.

Sorell Township, in the picturesque area outside Hobart Tasmania at the intersection of the key Tasman and Arthur Highways, has been masterplanned recently by Collie…

Sorell Council recognized its key Township of Sorrell was experiencing significant growth that was affecting existing operational systems. Future growth required some important decisions about the Township structure and a comprehensive master plan was seen as critical. Collie was appointed by the Council to complete the Sorell Township Urban Master Plan.

The final Master Plan was presented in October 2009 covering primary, secondary, and tertiary catchments that, in part, extended to influence areas beyond the Municipal boundary.

Background studies included population and activity centre needs assessments, a community visioning exercise and the preparation of ideas, options, and strategies for a group of key planning and development elements:

• residential strategy;
• industrial strategy;
• commercial strategy;
• community facilities strategy;
• transport and movement strategy.

The Master Plan itself was a combination of the above developed and then co-ordinated strategies and each key element (plus the addition of new broad – reaching elements of overall structure of the Township and urban design) was expressed in terms of:

• strategic directions;
• key issues;
• principles;
• physical elements.

The Sorell Township Urban Master Plan document included an implementation framework with objectives and principles – again relating to each of the key elements.

Does unprecedented population growth equal unprecedented opportunity?

As most people would have heard, Melbourne is experiencing population growth never seen before in Australia (over 200 people a day / around 1,500 people a week / around 75,000 people a year).  Given that this population growth is largely being driven by overseas students and migrants with different cultural backgrounds and often varying housing demands, it has the potential to change the nature of housing demand in Melbourne.  In particular, there is increasing demand for higher density living closer to the CBD, often in areas where obtaining a planning permit is a long and costly exercise.  There has been a lot of attention placed on developing the urban fringe, including creation of the Growth Areas Authority.  More focus now needs to be placed on assisting the approval process for appropriately designed and located higher density residential developments in the inner suburbs and in particular in and around activity centres.  Perhaps the development approvals committees are a first overdue step.

Arsenal Football Club in London has one of the newest and most impressive football stadiums in the world. 

Arsenal Football Club (Arsenal) is one of the largest and most successful football (soccer) clubs in England.  At the start of the 2006 / 07 season, Arsenal relocated from its long time home ground of ‘Highbury’ in north London to a brand new state-of-the-art 60,000-seat stadium (‘the Emirates’).  The opening of the new stadium was a significant milestone in an ambitious and comprehensive redevelopment project which involved a number of years of careful planning and resulted in more than just a new football stadium.

Aran Barker (Project Manager at Collie) was working in London at the time that the new stadium was being planned and was one of the planning officers at the London Borough of Islington (Council) who assessed the planning applications and who worked with Arsenal and with the local community to help make the development a success.  The following is Aran’s overview of the process and some of the key issues which were involved.

Background
Arsenal had been based at its home ground of ‘Highbury’ (in Islington) since 1913.  Over the years however, the capacity of ‘Highbury’ had reduced from a peak of approximately 73,000 (when terraces and standing areas were allowed) to approximately 38,000.  Significantly, the ground also had limited corporate facilities (a major source of income for modern football clubs).

Options to redevelop Highbury were explored by Arsenal however, the ground was completely surrounded by residential properties, severely limiting potential expansion.  Arsenal was keen to retain its links to the local community however, and so began exploring the feasibility of building a new stadium in the same general area (an ambitious task when you consider that Islington is one of the smallest and most densely developed Boroughs in inner London!).  Council was also keen to keep Arsenal in the Borough because of the success of the football team, the positive work which Arsenal did within the community and the profile the Club brings to the area.

In November 1999, following early feasibility work, Arsenal approached Council to discuss the potential of building a new stadium on an area of nearby industrial and warehousing land known as ‘Ashburton Grove’.  Council supported the general concept and in early 2000 prepared a series of ‘development briefs’ to help guide the progression and details of the project.  

The Planning Applications
In November 2000 Arsenal submitted three planning applications and one ‘listed building’ application to Council.  Together the applications represented the largest and most complex planning applications ever considered by the London Borough of Islington. 

The applications provided for development of the stadium itself and various associated buildings and infrastructure as well as an extensive amount of ‘enabling development’ (to facilitate and help finance the development).  The proposals also provided for the redevelopment of ‘Highbury’ from football ground to residential use. 

In combination, the planning applications provided for the following.

• A new football stadium (60,000 seats).
• New associated Arsenal buildings (Club museum, education centre, souvenir shop, ticket office and so on).
• New and improved Council depot and ‘waste and recycling centre’ (to replace existing facilities which would be displaced by the new stadium).
• Approximately 2,000 new homes (including 600 affordable homes).
• Approximately 17,000m2 of new business (office) floorspace.
• Approximately 11,000m2 of new shops, financial services, restaurants and other commercial space.
• 4 community health centres.
• 2 childrens nurseries.
• Approximately 3 hectares of new public open space.
• Various financial contributions. 

In considering the applications, Council officers investigated and assessed a broad range of issues including: the resulting loss of industrial and warehousing floorspace (a scarce resource in central London); likely impacts on transport infrastructure (including the road network and public transport systems); the impact on over 100 existing businesses who would be displaced by the development (including Council’s own vehicle depot and waste transfer station); employment and job implications; impact on community and social services; heritage matters; sustainability issues and many more. 

Following a number of negotiated changes and amendments, Council officers recommended that the applications be approved.  Critical to the recommendation was a complex legal agreement which was negotiated between Council officers and Arsenal.  The agreement secured numerous project benefits including a £7.6m contribution towards public transport upgrades; heavy restrictions on the permitted numbers of car parking spaces (and various other measures to discourage car travel); detailed measures to assist in the re-location of displaced businesses (including an obligation on Arsenal to pay rent subsidies); the construction of a new municipal waste and recycling centre and depot; and the provision of new open space areas, public art and other community benefits.  In December 2001, and in accordance with officers recommendations, the Council voted to approve the applications.

The Council decision was supported subsequently by the Mayor of London (who determined not to refuse the application), the Secretary of State (who determined not to ‘call in’ the application) and by the High Court (that dismissed challenges from objector groups against the Council decision).

Work on the enabling development commenced in August 2002 and on the stadium itself in March 2004.  The new football stadium was officially opened during 2006, and is now regarded as one of the premier football grounds in Europe.  Much of the associated development has also been completed.  

Further Details

For further details about the Arsenal project, Aran can be contacted by email at awb@colliepl.com.au (Despite his close involvement in the Arsenal project over a number of years, Aran remains a committed fan of Arsenal’s cross town football rival, West Ham United …‘Come on you Irons!!’)

Once again the Collie Dugongs will be participating in the MS Australia 24 Hour Megaswim.  As part of fund raising events this year, we will be hosting a Bunnings BBQ at Port Melbourne so come down and show your support.  The Megaswim will be held on the Friday and Saturday, 26 / 27 February 2010 and raises money for the MS Australia ‘Go for Gold’ Scholarship program.  ‘Go for Gold’ scholarships are awarded to people living with multiple sclerosis, covering a broad range of categories including education, travel, sport, music, the arts and employment. As part of our fundraising efforts this year, we will be hosting a Bunnings BBQ at the Port Melbourne Bunnings (501 Williamstown Road) from 9am to 4pm this Saturday (21 November) so come down and show your support for the Collie Dugongs and MS Australia and buy a sausage.   If you would like any more information on the Collie Dugongs, the 24 Hour Megaswim or how to make a donation, please contact Erin Flannery or email emf@colliepl.com.au.  All donations are greatly appreciated and tax deductible (over $2).

Collie staff are also raising money to help with awareness of and funds for men’s health by participating in Movember. Click here to find out more and see their efforts so far!

Collie staff are eagerly competing in the Movember challenge to help raise awareness and funds for men’s health – specifically prostate cancer and depression in men. Movember is now in its sixth year and, to date, has achieved some pretty amazing results by working alongside The Prostate Cancer Foundation (PCFA) and beyondblue: the national depression initiative. Check out further details at: http://au.movemberfoundation.com/research-and-programs.

Collie participants this year from left to right, are the four Js (and not the four amigos): John, Jay, Julian and James. If you wish to make your vote on the best mo and make a donation to the Movember foundation, it can be done by clicking on the links below and donating online using your credit card or pay pal account, or alternatively write a cheque payable to ‘Movember Foundation’, referencing their registration number (last six digits in the below links) and mailing it to: Movember Foundation, PO Box 292, PRAHRAN VICTORIA 3181. All donations over $2 are tax deductible. We are looking forward to seeing the final ‘mos’ at the end of the month!

John http://au.movember.com/mospace/475777
Jay http://au.movember.com/mospace/441958
Julian http://au.movember.com/mospace/453459
James http://au.movember.com/mospace/386114