Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme · • Correspondence to Planning Panels Victoria from...

Planning Panels Victoria

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme Knox Private Hospital 262 Mountain Highway and 2-8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna Date of Inspection 17 March 2014 Date of Report 31 July 2014 Prepared by Robert Kelderman

© Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd The information contained in this document is confidential and intended solely for the use of the client identified in the

report for the purpose for which it has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to

any third party. Use or copying of this document in whole or part without the written permission of Contour Consultants

Aust Pty Ltd constitutes an infringement of copyright. The Intellectual property contained in this document remains the property of Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd.

Planning Panels Victoria

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme Knox Private Hospital 262 Mountain Highway and 2-8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna Date of Inspection 17 March 2014 Date of Report 31 July 2014 Prepared by Robert Kelderman

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................... 4

2 Subject Site and Surrounds .................................. 6

2.1 Subject Site ................................................... 6

2.2 Surrounds ..................................................... 7

3 Existing Stage 1 Approval.................................... 16

4 Knox Planning Scheme --- Existing Provisions .... 17

4.1 State Planning Policy Framework ............. 17

4.2 Local Planning Policy Framework.............. 19

4.3 Zoning and Overlays ................................... 22

4.4 Plan Melbourne .......................................... 23

4.5 Other Informing Documents ...................... 23

5 Amendment C132 ................................................ 26

6 Amendment Process ........................................... 27

7 Planning Considerations ..................................... 28

7.1 Is a Development Plan Overlay Appropriate for the Subject Site? ................................... 28

7.2 Is the Development Outcome Envisaged Under the Development Plan Overlay Appropriate Having Regard to the Applicable State and Local Planning Policies? ...................................................... 28

7.3 Is the Development Outcome Envisaged by the Development Plan Overlay Appropriate Having Regard to the Amenity and Character of the Area? ................................ 31

7.4 Is the Content and Structure of Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay Appropriate? ............................................... 34

8 Conclusion ........................................................... 38

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme Contour Town Planners

Contents continued

Attachment 1 Summary of Qualifications and Experience for Robert Kelderman

Attachment 2 Proposed Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay (as currently preferred by Council)

Attachment 3 Correspondence from Stanton Kroenert, Woods Bagot Australia

Attachment 4 Suggested Amendments to Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 4

1 Introduction

1 I have been requested by Equipe Lawyers Pty Ltd, on behalf of the proponent; Healthscope Limited, to consider Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme, which affects land at 262 Mountain Highway and 2-8 Ainsdale Road, Wantirna. The land is primarily occupied by Knox Private Hospital.

2 I received this request and the associated instructions in correspondence from Equipe Lawyers Pty Ltd dated 15 June 2014.

3 I was not involved in the request for or the preparation of Amendment C132.

4 I recently provided planning evidence on behalf of the permit applicant (Healthscope Limited) at the Victorian civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearing relating to Application for Review No. P192/2014.

5 I have been provided with a copy of the directions of the Panel appointed to receive and consider submissions in relation to this matter.

6 I have inspected the subject site and surrounding area.

7 In preparing this report I have, amongst other documents, reviewed the following:

• The relevant provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme.

• The exhibited version of Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme, including proposed Schedule 11 to Clause 43.04 Development Plan Overlay (DPO) titled; ‘‘Knox Private Hospital Expansion’’.

• The documents supporting Amendment C132 prepared by various members of the proponent’s consultant team.

• Copies provided to me of the submissions to Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme.

• The Knox City Council Ordinary Meeting Report and Council resolution relating to Amendment C132 dated 22 April 2014, including the Council’s adopted Amendments to Schedule 11 to the DPO in response to submissions.

• The VPP Practice Note titled; ‘Applying Incorporated Plan and Development Plan Overlays (January 2003)’.

• The order of VCAT in Healthscope Limited v Knox City Council dated 8 July 2014 with respect to Application for Review No. P192/2014, being Stage 1 of the Knox Private Hospital expansion.


1 Introduction

• Correspondence to Planning Panels Victoria from Maddocks Lawyers, on behalf of Knox City Council dated 16 July 2014, which has attached to it the Council’s preferred version of Schedule 11 to the DPO. This version differs slightly from the version adopted by the Council on 22 April 2014.

8 A summary of my qualifications and experience is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

9 I am aware that expert evidence is to be provided in relation to other technical considerations as follows:

• Craig Czarny, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd --- urban design

• John Kiriakidis, GTA Consultants --- car parking and traffic • Alistair Bavage, Marshall Day --- acoustics • Evan Dimitropoulos, John Patrick Pty Ltd --- landscape

10 I defer to the evidence of these experts with respect to their particular

areas of expertise.


2 Subject Site and Surrounds

11 The subject site is located on the south-east corner of Mountain Highway and Boronia Road and opposite Wantirna Road in Wantirna. It comprises land known as 262 Mountain Highway, 2, 4, 6 and 8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna and the intended discontinued section of Kidderminster Drive between 4 and 6 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna.

12 The discontinued section of Kidderminster Drive is proposed to be acquired from Knox City Council by Healthscope Limited. The Council resolved at its meeting on 24 September 2013 that this area of road is not required as a road for public purpose and to commence the statutory procedures to discontinue and sell the road to Healthscope Limited.

13 The main part of the site at 262 Mountain Highway is presently developed and used for a hospital known as the Knox Private Hospital. The hospital was established on the site in approximately 1985. The hospital presently provides 311 operational hospital beds, 11 theatres, a 24 hour emergency department, a 10 bed intensive care unit, a 10 bed coronary care unit and a day procedure unit. This part of the site also accommodates approximately 708 car parking spaces within two separate car parking areas located to the north and south of the hospital building. Vehicle access to the site is provided from both Mountain Highway and Boronia Road.

14 The properties at 2-8 Ainsdale Avenue are owned by Healthscope Limited. The properties at 2 and 4 Ainsdale Avenue have been used as dwellings, 6 Ainsdale Avenue has been used for consulting suites and 8 Ainsdale Avenue has been used for storage purposes associated with the hospital.

15 The main part of the site is irregular in shape with a frontage to Mountain Highway of approximately 300 metres and a frontage to Boronia Road of approximately 80 metres.

16 The properties at 2, 4, 6 and 8 Ainsdale Avenue and the discontinued section of Kidderminster Drive have a combined frontage to Ainsdale Avenue of approximately 84 metres.

17 The subject site has an overall area of approximately 4.15 hectares.

18 The subject site generally slopes in a south-westerly direction toward the north-east corner with a fall of approximately 12 metres. Along the Ainsdale Avenue frontage, the fall is approximately 3.7 metres towards Boronia Road. Along the southern boundary, the site falls from the middle section (approximately at the rear of 100 Kidderminster Drive) to the east and west by 2.84 metres and 3.32 metres respectively.

2.1 Subject Site



19 The properties located adjacent to the intersection of Mountain Highway / Boronia Road / Wantirna Road opposite Knox Private Hospital are generally used for commercial and community uses. These include Wantirna Health and other medical centres, Wantirna Mall Shopping Centre, fast-food outlets (McDonald’s and KFC), restaurants, shops, service stations and other non-residential uses.

20 The subject site is located in an area identified as a ‘medical employment precinct’ in the Knox Planning Scheme.

21 The Wantirna Mall Shopping Centre forms part of a Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

22 The site also has access to public transport, including numerous bus services which operate along Mountain Highway, Boronia Road and Wantirna Road forming part of the Principal Public Transport Network. Bayswater Railway Station is located approximately 3.5 kms north-east of the site and is accessible by bus services operating along Mountain Highway.

23 The properties and areas located east and south of the site are within a General Residential Zone - Schedule 2 (formerly Residential 3 Zone) and generally comprise residential dwellings. The hospital adjoins seven properties to the east, being 10, 12 and 14 Ainsdale Avenue, 4, 5 and 6 Putney Close and 92 Kidderminster Drive, and ten properties to the south, being 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110 and 112 Kidderminster Drive. These properties each contain a single or double storey dwelling with the exception of two properties adjoining the site to the south in Kidderminster Drive (94 and 98) which comprise medical consulting suites.

24 Pedestrian access and vehicle access to the car park associated with 98 Kidderminster Drive is provided from the hospital site, via the existing southern car park. Pedestrian access to 94 Kidderminster Drive is also provided from the southern car park of the hospital site.

25 The properties further to the south on the opposite side of Ainsdale Avenue, generally opposite 2 - 8 Ainsdale Avenue, comprise residential dwellings.

2.2 Surrounds

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme

Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd 8


Figure 2.1 LOCALITY PLAN

Figure 2.2 CADASTRAL PLAN

Subject Site

Subject Site




Figure 2.3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (NEARMAP P/L) --- SUBJECT SITE

Figure 2.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (NEARMAP P/L) - LOCALITY

Subject Site

Subject Site



Figure 2.5 SUBJECT SITE - FRONTAGE TO MOUNTAIN HIGHWAY

Figure 2.6 SUBJECT SITE --- FRONTAGE TO BORONIA ROAD

Figure 2.7 SUBJECT SITE --- ENTRY TO CAR PARK FROM BORONIA ROAD

Figure 2.8 VIEW ALONG BORONIA ROAD

SUBJECT SITE



Figure 2.9 COUNCIL LAND LOCATED AT NORTH WEST CORNER OF BORONIA ROAD AND AINSDALE AVENUE

Figure 2.10 VIEW WEST ALONG BORONIA ROAD

Figure 2.11 VIEW OF PROPERTIES OPPOSITE THE SUBJECT SITE IN AINSDALE AVENUE

2 AINSDALE AVENUE EXISTING HOSPITAL

2 AINSDALE AVENUE



Figure 2.12 VIEW TOWARDS SUBJECT SITE FROM AINSDALE AVENUE, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED DISCONTINUED SECTION OF KIDDERMINSTER DRIVE

Figure 2.13 VIEW TOWARDS PROPERTIES IN AINSDALE AVENUE FROM BADMINTON COURT

Figure 2.14 VIEW GENERALLY NORTH-WEST TOWARD THE EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDINGS (FROM THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SITE)



Figure 2.15 VIEW OF THE EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDINGS FROM WITHIN THE NORTHERN CAR PARK AREA

Figure 2.16 VIEW GENERALLY WEST FROM AINSDALE AVENUE TOWARD PUTNEY CLOSE

Figure 2.17 VIEW OF THE SOUTHERN INTERFACE WITH PROPERTIES IN KIDDERMINSTER DRIVE, TAKEN FROM THE SOUTHERN CAR PARK



Figure 2.18 VIEW GENERALLY EAST OF EXISTING HOSPITAL BUILDINGS AND THE SOUTHERN CAR PARK

Figure 2.19 VIEW OF THE SOUTHERN CAR PARK AND THE REAR OF PROPERTIES IN KIDDERMINSTER DRIVE

Figure 2.20 VIEW GENERALLY WEST OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERN CAR PARK AND INTERFACE WITH PROPERTIES FRONTING KIDDERMINSTER



Figure 2.21 VIEW EAST FROM SOUTHERN CAR PARK TOWARD SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT SITE

Figure 2.22 VIEW OF EXISTING VEHICLE ACCESS FROM THE SOUTHERN CAR PARK INTO 98 KIDDERMINSTER DRIVE

Figure 2.23 VIEW OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE SETBACK LOCATED BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN CAR PARK AND PROPERTY AT 98 KIDDERMINSTER DRIVE


3 Existing Stage 1 Approval

26 Planning Permit No. P/2013/6593 is to be issued at the direction of the Tribunal (Healthscope Limited v Knox City Council, VCAT Reference No. P192/2014).

27 The approved extensions to the north of the hospital (North Precinct) comprise:

• Three-storey building (adjoining the existing three-storey building) providing consulting suites and administration areas at ground floor level, 30 beds at first floor level and 30 beds at second floor level. Two new lifts are proposed together with internal connections to the existing building. Plant rooms are also proposed over part of the upper floor level.

• Extension of the existing car park, including 96 spaces within Level B2, 92 spaces within Level B1 and 72 spaces at ground level. Vehicle access to the new car parking will be provided from the existing car park entry to Boronia Road and through the existing car park.

• Provision of a landscape setback adjacent to the Ainsdale Avenue frontage with a width of approximately 9.5 metres.

28 The approved extension to the south of the hospital (South Precinct) comprises:

• Single-storey extension to the hospital comprising additional medical imaging areas, service areas, new kitchen facilities and maintenance building.

• Covered truck route to loading bays.

• Reconfigured and partially regraded car park comprising 49 spaces.

• Vehicle ramp to new Level 1 car park comprising 84 spaces, together with vehicle and pedestrian access to 98 Kidderminster and pedestrian access to 94 Kidderminster Avenue. These access arrangements will provide for the continuation of the existing access to the medical centres on these properties.

• Enclosed walkway between the Level 1 car park and the south precinct lift and stair access.


4 Knox Planning Scheme --

Existing Provisions

29 The subject site is affected by the Knox Planning Scheme.

30 The following State Planning Policy Framework provisions are relevant:

• Plan Melbourne (Clause 9) • Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework (Clause 10) • Settlement (Clause 11)

--- Activity Centres (Clause 11.01) --- Metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 11.04)

• Natural Resource Management (Clause 14) --- Water (Clause 14.02)

• Built Environment and Heritage (Clause 15) --- Urban Environment (Clause 15.01) --- Sustainable Development (Clause 15.02)

• Transport (Clause 18) --- Integrated Transport (Clause 18.01) --- Movement Networks (Clause 18.02)

• Infrastructure (Clause 19) --- Community Infrastructure (Clause 19.02)

31 Of particular note, the Goal of State planning policy under Clause 10

and the starting point in assessment Amendment C132 is ‘‘. . . to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development’’.

32 Clause 10.04 also states that ‘‘. . . Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations’’.

33 Clause 11.01-2 relates to ‘Activity centre planning’ and indicates the following objectives and strategies (inter alia):

Objective

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.

Strategies

Give clear direction in relation to preferred locations for investment.

Reduce the number of private motorised trips by concentrating activities that generate high numbers of (non-freight) trips in highly accessible activity centres.

4.1 State Planning Policy Framework


4 Knox Planning Scheme --- Existing Provisions

Improve access by walking, cycling and public transport to services and facilities for local and regional populations.

Broaden the mix of uses in activity centres to include a range of services over longer hours appropriate to the type of centre and needs of the population served.

Provide a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilities.

Encourage economic activity and business synergies. Locate significant new education, justice, community, administrative and health facilities that attract users from large geographic areas in or on the edge of Central Activities Districts, Principal or Major Activity Centres with good public transport.

Locate new small scale education, health and community facilities that meet local needs in or next to Neighbourhood Activity Centres.

Clause 19.02-1 relates to ‘Health facilities’ and includes the following objectives and strategies, inter alia:

• To assist the integration of health facilities with local and regional communities.

--- Facilitate the location of health-related facilities (including acute health, aged care, disability services and community care facilities) with consideration given to demographic trends, the existing and future demand requirements and the integration of services into communities.

--- Plan public and private developments together, where possible, including some degree of flexibility in use.

--- Locate hospitals and other large health service facilities in areas highly accessible to public and private transport.

--- Adequate car parking facilities should be provided for staff and visitors.

34 I have taken each of the abovementioned policies into account in the

preparation of my evidence and will address the key ones later.



35 The local policies in the Knox Planning Scheme that are relevant to the proposal are:

Municipal Strategic Statement

• Vision and Strategic Land Use Framework (Clause 21.03)

• Urban Design (Clause 21.04) • Economic Development (Clause 21.07) • Infrastructure (Clause 21.08) Clause 21.03 --- Vision and Strategic Land Use Framework

36 The Overall Strategic Framework Plan forming part of this Clause indicates that the Knox Private Hospital forms part of a ‘medical employment precinct’ focussed, in addition to the Wantirna Mall Shopping Centre, around the Mountain Highway and Boronia Road intersection.

37 The Plan also indicates that Boronia Road forms part of the Principal Public Transport Network.

Clause 21.04 --- Urban Design

38 The relevant objectives relating to urban form and ecologically sustainable development contained in Clause 21.04-2 are outlined below:

• To ensure that all development responds positively to the existing patterns of urban form and character, the landscape qualities, historic and cultural elements and social dimensions and aspirations of the Knox community.

• To reinforce the structure and image of Knox as an attractive place to live, do business, recreate and as a tourist attraction.

• To ensure that the declared arterial network of transport and movement corridors makes a positive contribution to Knox’s image.

• To enrich the distinct topographic and landscape qualities and characteristics of Knox.

• To ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to sustainability and the urban fabric of Knox.

39 KThe Urban Design Strategic Framework Plan forming part of this clause

indicates that the notation ‘prominent keystone building format gateway intersections’ applies to the intersection of Mountain Highway and Boronia Road.

Clause 21.07 --- Economic Development

40 This clause recognises that the Knox economy is comprised of a diverse range of activities.

4.2 Local Planning Policy Framework



41 The relevant objectives include, inter alia:

• To promote sustainable economic development. • To ensure that the image and character of Knox remain as an

attractive place to do business. • To ensure a hierarchy of viable, accessible activity centres with a

greater range of complementary activities for domestic, business, leisure and social life with improved public transport services.

• Encourage development of more viable mixes of land uses within activity centres.

• To ensure activity centres are attractive and safe settings for pedestrians and make shops and services more accessible for local residents and workers.

• To allow non-residential uses in residential areas which provide services to the community without significant detriment to residential amenity.

42 Clause 21.07 also refers to Wantirna Mall being a larger neighbourhood

activity centre that ‘. . . will provide retail and commercial activities that serve the day to day needs of the local community while providing some opportunities for residential development’.

43 Clause 21.07 also refers to the following:

Non-residential uses in residential areas.

A number of non-residential uses are recognised as being appropriate uses in residential areas including medical centres, veterinary centres, display homes, convenience shops and child minding centres. Some of these uses locate in residential areas due to proximity to a major facility such as an educational institution or hospital. The improper design or location of these facilities in a residential environment can, however, negatively impact on the residential amenity of an area.

The establishment of non-residential uses in residential areas on the periphery of activity centres and major facilities provides the opportunity for a buffer between business and residential uses. It minimises intrusion of non-residential uses into local residential streets. Non-residential uses which operate until late at night should be located to minimise intrusion into residential areas where late night commercial activity does not currently exist.

44 It also refers to the following strategy:

Encourage development that is designed and located to contribute to the vitality and vibrancy of activity centres, and provides a focus for community activity, interaction and commercial activity.



Clause 21.08 --- Infrastructure

45 Objective 5 relates to ‘Community Health and Wellbeing’ and states:

• To ensure that social infrastructure is accessible and meets the existing and future needs of the community.

46 The relevant strategies include, inter alia:

• Encourage community facilities to be co-located and multi purpose to service a range of activities.

• Encourage community facilities providing essential services such as education, employment, healthy food options and health care to be visible, accessible and located near nodes of activity and public transport routes as appropriate.

• Encourage key development proposals to consider providing active, secure and safe public realm opportunities.

• Provide or support the provision of social infrastructure that supports individuals and families throughout their life cycle.

• Encourage the design of development (where appropriate) to be flexible and adaptable to accommodate a variety of uses through the building lifespan to accommodate the needs of a changing community.

Local Policies

47 The Neighbourhood Character policy at Clause 22.07 applies to development and works in residential areas within the City of Knox as shown on Map 1 forming part of the clause.

48 Map 1 indicates that the existing hospital site is excluded from this policy and that the properties at 2-8 Ainsdale Avenue and the proposed discontinued section of road are located at the north-western corner of the Garden Court Precinct (GC1).

49 The statement of desired future character for this precinct is:

• Low scale dwellings set within an open landscape with, in some areas, occasional pockets of large native trees.

50 The design objectives for the Garden Court Precincts are:

• To retain the remnant indigenous and other native trees and encourage the planting of large native trees.

• To maintain the rhythm of spacing between dwellings. • To minimise the dominance of buildings from the street. • To minimise the loss of garden space, and dominance of car

storage facilities. • To maintain the openness of front boundary treatments.




51 The existing hospital site at 262 Mountain Highway, the properties at 2 and 4 Ainsdale Avenue and part of the discontinued section of Kidderminster Drive are located within a General Residential Zone --- Schedule 1 (formerly Residential 1 Zone).

52 The properties at 6 and 8 Ainsdale Avenue and part of the discontinued section of Kidderminster Drive are located within a General Residential Zone --- Schedule 2 (formerly Residential 3 Zone).

53 The purpose of the General Residential Zone is:

• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

• To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

• To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

54 Under the General Residential Zone provisions, the use of land for a ‘Hospital’ is a Section 2 use (permit required). A permit is also required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.08-1.

55 The land is currently not affected by any overlay controls.

Figure 4.1 ZONING PLAN, KNOX PLANNING SCHEME

4.3 Zoning and Overlays

Subject Site



56 These zone provisions were introduced on 1 July 2014 as a ‘neutral conversion’ of the existing residential zones as Amendment C131 to the Knox Planning Scheme, which proposes to apply the new residential zones, was yet to be completed. Relevant details relating to Amendment C131 are contained in Section 3.6 of this report.

Plan Melbourne

57 ‘Plan Melbourne’ is the State Government’s recently released Metropolitan Planning Strategy.

58 Significantly, it recognises Knox Private Hospital as a health precinct of State significance.

Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C131

59 Amendment C131 applies to all land within the City of Knox. The amendment implements the findings of the ‘Knox Housing Strategy 2013’, the ‘Knox Residential Guidelines’, and the ‘Rowville Plan (2013)’, and implements the new residential zones into the Knox Planning Scheme.

60 The amendment was placed on exhibition on 26 February 2014.

61 The exhibited documents indicate that the whole of the subject site is proposed to be included in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ3). Refer Figure 3.2.

62 The purpose of the Residential Growth Zone is:

• To implement that State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• To provide housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storey buildings.

• To encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering good access to services and transport including activities areas.

• To encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and areas of restricted housing growth.

• To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

4.4 Plan Melbourne

4.5 Other Informing Documents



63 The exhibited Schedule 3 to the Residential Growth Zone refers to relevant Design and Development Overlay or Development Plan Overlay schedules for maximum building height.

64 At the Council meeting on 24 June 2014 the Council resolved as follows:

That Council:

1. Consider the submissions received in response to the draft Knox Housing Strategy 2013, draft Residential Design Guidelines, Rowville Plan, Amendment C131 and Amendment C133 to the Knox Planning Scheme as detailed in Appendix B;

2. Endorse the changes to the draft Knox Housing strategy 2013, draft Residential Guidelines for the purposes of the independent Planning Panel as detailed in Appendix C;

3. Endorse the changes to the Rowville Plan 2013 for the purposes of the independent Planning Panel as detailed in Appendix C;

4. Adopt the recommendations detailed in the Amendment C131 Summary of Submissions document (Appendix B);

5. Endorse the changes to Amendment C133 detailed in Appendix F;

6. Request that the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider Amendments C131 and C133, all submissions received and the proposed revised changes as detailed in Appendix C (refer to 2, 3, 4 and 5 above); and

7. Authorise the Director --- City Development to make minor changes to the Amendment documentation, draft Housing Strategy 2013, draft Residential Guidelines and adopted Rowville Plan 2013 prior to the Planning Panel, where changes do not affect the purpose or intent of the Amendment.

With regard to the subject land, Appendix C recommends amending the zoning map to show the land at 2, 4, 6 and 8 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna as General Residential Zone, Schedule 2 (GRZ2).




Figure 4.2 AMENDMENT C131, KNOX PLANNING SCHEME --- EXHIBITED ZONES

Subject Site


5 Amendment C132

65 Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme applies specifically to the subject site; being land at 262 Mountain Highway and 2-8 Ainsdale Avenue (including the discontinued section of Kidderminster Drive), Wantirna.

66 The amendment proposes to apply a Development Plan Overlay to the subject site and introduce a new Schedule 11 titled; ‘‘Knox Private Hospital Expansion’’ to facilitate the proposed expansion of the hospital generally in accordance with the ‘‘Indicative Knox Private Hospital Master Plan, August 2013’’.

Figure 5.1 AMENDMENT C132 - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY


6 Amendment Process

67 The Knox City Council is the planning authority for this amendment. The amendment was on public exhibition from 30 January to 6 March 2014.

68 I have been provided with a copy of the submissions (31 submissions) lodged in relation to the amendment including from a number of residents from properties that adjoin the subject site as follows:

• 12 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna

• 14 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna • 16 Ainsdale Avenue, Wantirna • 100 Kidderminster Drive, Wantirna

• 112 Kidderminster Drive, Wantirna

69 A brief summary of the main issues raised in the submissions is provided in the Council Report dated 22 April 2014 as follows:

• Parking overspill into streets surrounding the Hospital;

• Traffic safety and illegal U-turns;

• Impact on residential amenity, particularly on immediate neighbours;

• A residential area is inappropriate for a large hospital/community facility;

• Impact of a DPO on residents’ appeal rights;

• Impact on property values.

70 The submissions also include responses from Public Transport Victoria, Melbourne Water, South East Water, Department of State Development, Business and Innovation (Earth Resources Regulation), VicRoads and Department of Environment and Primary Industries which provide no objection or advice relating to specific matters.


7 Planning Considerations

71 I agree with the Council that the proposed Development Plan Overlay (DPO) for the subject site is an appropriate tool that will suitably provide for the guided and integrated expansion of the Knox Private Hospital and, in doing so, provide certainty about the nature and extent of the Hospital's future development.

72 This is an appropriate approach for a large metropolitan hospital facility, the expansion of which is strongly supported by State and local planning policy.

73 Notably, a Development Plan Overlay applies under the Knox Planning Scheme to other major facilities and precincts in the municipality, including but not limited to Stud Park Shopping Centre (Schedule 1), Knox City/Towerpoint Shopping Centre (Schedule 2), Wellington Village Shopping Centre (Schedule 4) and Scoresby-Rowville Employment Precinct (Schedule 6).

74 I acknowledge that the DPO will remove third party objection and review rights with respect to future planning permit applications that are 'generally in accordance with' an approved Development Plan. However, I consider that adequate opportunity exists for the relevant considerations associated with the expansion of the Hospital to be properly assessed as part of the current Planning Scheme Amendment process and as part of the subsequent Development Plan and planning permit approval processes in response to the detailed requirements and decision guidelines set out in Schedule 11 to the DPO.

75 The development outcome envisaged by Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay (as currently adopted by the Council) and as shown on the "Indicative Master Plan - October 2013" (the Master Plan) consists of the following:

• Three additional levels of hospital wards (which I understand will accommodate 180 beds) over the existing car park deck at the northern end of the subject site towards Boronia Road.

• A new two-level maternity ward building mid-way along the eastern boundary (which I understand will accommodate 45 beds), as an extension to the existing South Precinct building.

• Internal alterations within the central area of the Hospital to accommodate expansions to the surgery and theatre areas.

• A new single level Emergency Department over part of the existing Southern Precinct at-grade car park.

• A new three-level decked car park towards the southern boundary; to be partly constructed over the new Emergency Department. It also includes two new levels over the ground level kitchen, covered truck route and loading and maintenance areas, and the Level 1 car

7.1 Is a Development Plan Overlay Appropriate for the Subject Site?

7.2 Is the Development Outcome Envisaged Under the Development Plan Overlay Appropriate Having Regard to the Applicable State and Local Planning Policies?



park all of which were approved under the recently issued planning permit (Stage 1).

• Re-configuring the existing at-grade car park toward the south-west corner of the site to facilitate truck delivery access to the relocated gas storage facility also on this part of the site.

76 In my opinion, the expansion of the Hospital is strongly supported by the applicable State and local planning policies.

77 In this regard, I agree with the Tribunal's comment at paragraph 30 of its decision for the Stage 1 expansion, as follows:

"In terms of using the land for hospital activities, we find that State and local planning policy strongly encourages the hospital's expansion. Most tellingly, Knox Private Hospital is identified as a Health Precinct of State significance in 'Plan Melbourne', the State Government's newly released planning framework for metropolitan Melbourne."

78 As I have outlined in Section 4.1 of my report, State planning policy also has at its highest level, the goal of balancing conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit. This requires an assessment of both the benefits and dis-benefits of any proposal and whether there is an overall net benefit to the community.

79 Knox Private Hospital is the largest hospital in the eastern metropolitan region and I am advised that it needs to expand to meet the increasing demands of the region's population and that the Hospital's proposed additions are fundamental in meeting these demands. Clause 21.01 (Municipal Profile) recognises that the City of Knox itself will continue to experience population growth and an ageing of the population, which itself will have implications for the provision of health and hospital services in the local area.

80 While the specific details of the proposed additions are a matter for the subsequent Development Plan and planning permit approval processes, I am satisfied that there will be no unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties.

81 While the proposed additions will be seen to varying degrees from some neighbouring residential properties in Ainsdale Avenue and Putney Close to the east and Kidderminster Drive to the south, the impacts will not be significant and there is a clear net community benefit arising from the Hospital's expansion. I address the amenity considerations later in my report.

82 At the local policy level, the main part of the subject site is included within a 'Medical and Employment Precinct' under Clause 21.03. Most of the proposed additions are located on the main part of the subject site. The expansion of the Hospital is consistent with this designation.



83 Also at the local policy level, The Neighbourhood Character Policy at 22.07 applies to the properties at 2-8 Ainsdale Avenue and the proposed discontinued section of road which form part of the subject site. These properties are located within the Garden Court Precinct (GC1).

84 Part of the new three-storey hospital ward building to the north that is shown on the Master Plan is located on the property at 4 Ainsdale Avenue. It comprises nine hospital beds over each of the three levels, with stair access.

85 I acknowledge that the expansion of the Hospital over these properties is somewhat inconsistent with the Statement of Desired Future Character of this precinct; being ". . . Low scale dwellings set within an open landscape with, in some areas, occasional pockets of large mature trees".

86 However, the recently issued permit already allows for the Hospital to be expanded over these properties notwithstanding this desired Statement of Desired Future Character.

87 In this regard, I note that the Tribunal commented at page 19 of its decision as follows:

"We do not agree with Mr Lewis that there should be no development on Ainsdale Avenue. As mentioned earlier, the land's zoning contemplates non-residential uses and its location next to an existing hospital of State significance suggests that it is reasonable to expect that the hospital might expand over this land. In this context, any development on this land has to appropriately respond to its context and we consider the car park wall does this."

88 It is also noteworthy with respect to the context that these properties are located at the north-west corner of the Garden Court Precinct adjacent to the existing Hospital and at the interface with an arterial road that has a large neighbourhood activity centre on the opposite side. This is quite a different context to most of the properties elsewhere within the Garden Court Precinct.

89 The expansion of the Hospital on to this land otherwise responds broadly to the design objectives for this precinct through the provision of an extensive 9.5 metres wide landscape setback adjacent to the Ainsdale Avenue frontage that includes the provision of native trees and shrubs, the details of which form part of the existing approval. The new building is marginally set back from the approved car park structure below (by approximately 2 metres) and does not encroach into this setback.



Northern Hospital Ward Building

90 In my opinion, the location of the three-storey hospital ward building to the north fronting Mountain Highway and Boronia Road is an appropriate built-form response. Both are arterial roads forming part of an expansive intersection and this interface is otherwise characterised by commercial land uses opposite.

91 The key consideration associated with this building relates to its eastern end toward Ainsdale Avenue, particularly the component that extends over 4 Ainsdale Avenue that I have referred to already. The Master Plan shows this component with an 11.6 metres setback to Ainsdale Avenue.

92 I acknowledge that this part of the building will readily be visible from Ainsdale Avenue, above the approved car park deck/wall, however, it is also located at the less sensitive, northern end of the street towards Boronia Road and is well separated from the front boundaries of the residential properties at 1-5 Ainsdale Avenue opposite by approximately 37 metres. This includes the road reserve and the landscape buffer to be provided on the subject site as part of the existing approval along the full extent of the car park wall to this interface.

93 I understand that this component can be moved a further 8.4 metres to the north towards Boronia Road than shown on the Master Plan and I recommend that the Master Plan be amended accordingly. I otherwise understand that it is not possible to move it further to the north without impacting on the operational requirements for hospital ward planning, the details of which are set out in correspondence from Stanton Kroenert of Woods Bagot Australia and which I have included as Attachment 3 to my statement.

94 I also understand for the same reasons that are set out in the Woods Bagot correspondence that it is not practical to relocate one or more levels of this end of the building to the western end towards Mountain Highway as additional levels.

95 On balance, including in consideration of the State significance of the Hospital, the limited opportunities elsewhere on the site to accommodate additional hospital wards and the overall net community benefit to be achieved by the Hospital's proposed expansion, I consider the proposed outcome to be appropriate.

96 I have also been provided with shadow diagrams based on the Master Plan and note that the overshadowing from the proposed three-storey hospital ward building to the north will be fully contained within the subject site at the September Equinox until 2pm, and at 3pm would not extend beyond the road surface of Ainsdale Avenue.

97 I also note that the Council's preferred version of Schedule 11 to the DPO includes various notations relating to setbacks along the eastern and southern boundaries. This includes a note requiring a landscape

7.3 Is the Development Outcome Envisaged by the Development Plan Overlay Appropriate Having Regard to the Amenity and Character of the Area?



buffer with a minimum width of 6 metres to be provided along Ainsdale Avenue. It is not necessary to include this note as the landscape buffer along this interface already forms part of the existing approval and is dimensioned at 9.5 metres. As I have noted, the northern hospital ward building itself is otherwise set back 11.6 metres from Ainsdale Avenue.

Maternity Ward Building

98 I also consider the two-storey maternity ward building to be appropriately located. It is shown on the Master Plan as having a 5.31 metre setback to the eastern boundary where it abuts the rear boundaries of 12 & 14 Ainsdale Avenue and 5 & 6 Putney Close.

99 While I acknowledge that this building is likely to be higher in comparison to a typical two-storey building, even a three-storey building with a wall height of 9 metres would require a setback of only 4.09 metres under Standard B17 of Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme.

100 The articulation of the building and measures to avoid unreasonable overlooking of the adjoining residential properties are otherwise matters for the planning permit approval stage and I see no reason why this could not be suitably resolved at that time as part of the detailed design.

101 The shadow diagrams that have been prepared by Woods Bagot to accompany the Master Plan otherwise show that the rear yards of these adjoining properties will not be overshadowed by the proposed development between 9am and 2pm in full compliance with Standard B21 of Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme.

102 As is the case with the northern hospital ward building, the Council's preferred version of Schedule 11 to the DPO includes a note requiring a minimum 6 metre landscape buffer along this interface, which is 690mm more than is otherwise shown on the Master Plan. I am unsure as to why the Council is suggesting this as its preferred outcome and there is no explanation in the Council officer's report to the Council meeting on 22 April 2014 other than to "… protect residential amenity". This is the same stated preface to all of the Council's referred amendments to the exhibited version of the DPO.

103 Rather than the "protection" of residential amenity being the relevant consideration, the test should be whether the amenity outcomes are appropriate or unreasonable. In my opinion, the additional 690mm is not necessary having regard to these considerations, for the reasons outlined above.

104 I also understand from the advice prepared by Stanton Kroenert of Woods Bagot Australia (included as Attachment 3 to my statement) that the additional 690mm setback preferred by the Council will result in reduced bed numbers. I do not see this being an appropriate outcome, including when assessed against the goal of balancing conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit.



Southern Precinct Additions

105 With respect to the South Precinct additions, I note the following:

• The new Emergency Department and the approved kitchen and loading/maintenance areas are mostly located at a lower level than the rear yards of the adjoining residential properties to the south.

• The Master Plan shows a 6 metre setback including a 5 metres wide landscape buffer from the southern boundary for the three car parking levels, including over the new Emergency Department and recently approved kitchen and loading/maintenance areas.

• The Level 1 car park approved to date over the kitchen and loading/maintenance areas is set back between 5.122 metres and 5.303 metres from the southern boundary.

• The requirement of the Council under its preferred version of the DPO is to provide a minimum setback of 6.6 metres at the Level 1 car park and 12 metres for the Levels 2 and 3 car parks.

• The accompanying more detailed plans that have been provided to the Council in support of Amendment C132 show southern boundary setbacks of approximately 5 metres at Level 1 and 7.5 metres at Levels 2 and 3.

106 In my opinion, the Master Plan should be amended as an appropriate outcome to provide for a 7.5 metres setback at the Level 1 car park, consistent with the two levels above. This will enable the provision of a 5 metres wide landscape buffer along the common boundary with the adjoining properties, together with the opportunity to provide for a meaningful landscape wall to each level within the other 2.5 metres.

107 I acknowledge that the new South Precinct additions will have a considerable expanse of over 135 metres and that Levels 1 and 2 will be visible from the adjoining residential properties. However, I envisage that the landscape buffer and landscaped wall can be appropriately detailed to assist in minimising building bulk and to effectively screen the car park structure itself.

108 As is the case with the other components of the Master Plan, these details together with measures to avoid unreasonable overlooking and headlight glare are otherwise matters for the planning permit approval stage. I see no reason why these considerations could not be suitably resolved at that time as part of the detailed design. This can also be expressed in the Schedule under the heading "Requirements before a permit is granted."

109 Any additional overshadowing of the rear yards of the residential properties to the south fronting Kidderminster Drive beyond that cast by the common fences would be minor and well within that suggested as being appropriate under Standard B21 of Clause 55 of the Planning



Scheme. This outcome is also shown on the shadow diagrams prepared by Woods Bagot.

110 While I also acknowledge that a 12 metres setback at the upper car park levels would reduce the extent to which this component is viewed from the adjoining residential properties, I am advised that this would have a significant impact on the ability of the site to accommodate the necessary additional car parking associated with the additional hospital beds and expansion of the theatre and surgery facilities.

111 Overall, I consider that the Master Plan with an amended 7.5 metres setback to the southern boundary strikes a reasonable balance between providing for the expansion needs of the Hospital and maintaining a reasonable outlook to the north for the adjoining residential properties in Kidderminster Drive.

112 At the south-west corner of the site, I understand that it is not possible to provide a 6 metres setback to the reconfigured at-grade cart parking area from the southern boundary as preferred by the Council, albeit that it is partly shown at this dimension. The constraint in this regard relates to the need to allow for the turning movements of trucks accessing the relocated gas storage area.

113 Notwithstanding this constraint, I consider a slightly more generous landscape strip than approximately 1 metre as shown, to be warranted. From the more detailed plans that have been prepared by Woods Bagot as part of the material in support of Amendment C132, I understand that this can be achieved by removing the two southern-most centrally located car spaces in this area, which will increase the minimum setback from approximately 1metre as currently shown to approximately 3 metres. This will provide for an appropriate outcome at this interface and will also increase the setback of the entry from the car park to the covered truck route. I regard this as an appropriate outcome and do not see a need for a greater setback than approximately 3 metres given that there are no buildings on this part of the hospital site.

114 In my opinion, Schedule 11 is unnecessarily cumbersome in that it includes a Master Plan as part of the Schedule (Figure 1) in addition to the requirement that a Development Plan that must be in accordance with the Master Plan. In addition, the Development Plan Overlay requires that a permit must be generally in accordance with the Development Plan.

115 It would be appropriate to condense the three layers into two layers to avoid unnecessary repetition, which can be achieved by removing the Master Plan (i.e. Figure 1) from the Schedule itself and including reference to it as a Requirement for the Development Plan. In this regard, the Requirement can simply state that "… The Development Plan must be generally in accordance with the Indicative Master Plan - October 2013" and include the following: ….."

7.4 Is the Content and Structure of Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay Appropriate?



116 My comments in relation to the content and wording of Schedule 11 are otherwise set out as follows and they are also included as mark-ups over the Council's preferred version. (Refer Attachment 4)

Objectives

117 I see no need for the Schedule to include stated objectives, including in reference to matters that are addressed by other provisions of the Planning Scheme (e.g. in respect of car parking and bicycle provision) or other matters that are relevant considerations but not the underlying basis for the application of the DPO to the subject site.

118 If there is to be a stated objective or purpose, it would be sufficient for it to simply be "… To provide for the orderly expansion of the Knox Private Hospital."

Requirement before a Permit is Granted

119 With two exceptions, the requirements that are set out in the exhibited version of Schedule 11 are appropriate as the stated matters for which a permit may be granted before a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The amendments I recommend are minor. Maintenance works do not need to be specified as they are exempt from requiring a permit under Clause 62.02-2 of the Planning Scheme.

120 Otherwise, I am not sure what is meant or intended by the reference to the "use and development of the land for temporary uses" given that the main part of the subject site is used solely as a Hospital, which is unlikely to change, and also given the Tribunal's recent order that provides for the use and development of the Ainsdale Avenue properties also as a Hospital.

121 The amended requirements that are set out in the Council's subsequent preferred version of Schedule 11 are inappropriate in my opinion on the following basis:

• It is not necessary for a Traffic and Parking Management Plan to be prepared before a permit is granted for the minor matters that are specified, which include façade alterations, signage installation and the upgrading of services and on-going maintenance works.

• It is not necessary to impose a requirement for a Section 173 Agreement to be entered into with respect to a Traffic and Parking Management Plan. As is the case in any event, the requirement for a Traffic and Parking Management Plan can simply be included in the Schedule as a Requirement of the Development Plan.

• They include relating to free on-site parking, traffic signals and U-turns etc. that have previously been determined by the Tribunal as being unwarranted.



122 I would also question the need for a Traffic and Parking Management Plan to be prepared before a permit can be granted for a 'temporary' use on one or more of the four Ainsdale Avenue properties, should a "temporary use" even be contemplated prior to the commencement of the existing permitted Stage 1 Hospital expansion.

Requirements for Development Plan

123 It is sufficient, in my opinion, for the Requirements of the Development Plan to be limited to following:

• Existing conditions plans.

• A site analysis and design response.

• Concept plans and elevations which show:

∙ Building locations, heights and setbacks. ∙ Car parking areas, vehicle accessways and pedestrian entry

points and pathways.

• Cross-sections, indicating level changes across the site and at the interfaces with adjoining properties.

• Shadow diagrams with respect to adjoining properties.

124 It is also appropriate for the Development Plan to be accompanied by the following:

• A Traffic and Parking Assessment.

• A Landscape Concept Plan, detailing the matters specified in the Council's adopted Schedule.

• A Safety Management Study with respect to the adjacent high pressure gas pipeline.

125 Otherwise, specific details including those relating to any necessary screening to prevent unreasonable overlooking and light spill into adjoining residential properties, noise attenuation measures, materials, plant and services, disabled access, tree protection zones, bicycle storage, permit conditions associated with the adjacent high pressure gas pipeline etc, are matters that are more appropriately considered in respect of any planning permit application.

Conditions and Requirements for Permits

126 I consider the matters set out under this section of the Council's current adopted version of Schedule 11 to be appropriate, with the following exceptions:

• A Disability Access Audit Report does not need to accompany an application and can be suitably addressed by way of a permit



condition, if warranted. I note that it has not been required by the Tribunal in respect of the current approval.

• There is no need to require a Management Plan by way of permit condition. This also has not been required by the Tribunal in respect of the current approval.

• It is not appropriate or practical to specify hours of operation for a Hospital, whether in a Management Plan or otherwise. This has also not been required by the Tribunal in respect of the current approval.

• Delivery hours and noise control measures can be specified by way of permit condition rather than in a Management Plan, similar to the conditions required by the Tribunal in respect of the current approval. (Refer Conditions 12 and 25-28)

• There is no need for a Traffic and Parking Management Plan. This also has not been required by the Tribunal in respect of the current approval. Instead, there is a requirement for a Car Parking Management Study. (Refer Condition 17)

• A Construction Management Plan is relevant to the neighbourhood generally and not just the neighbouring residential area. Reference to the "neighbouring residential area" can be removed.

• The matters that are specified for the Responsible Authority to consider before deciding on an application are more appropriately included in the Decision Guidelines rather than as permit conditions. As part of this, there is no need to refer back to the objectives of the Schedule.

Decision Guidelines

127 The matters currently specified in the decision guidelines are superfluous and should be removed. They are not guidelines as such and simply repeat objectives and requirements that need to be taken into consideration in any event under the "Requirements for development plan".


8 Conclusion

128 For the reasons I have outlined, I consider Amendment C132 to be an appropriate planning outcome, subject to the amendments to Schedule 11 to the DPO that are contained in Attachment 4 to my statement.

129 I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Robert Kelderman B.App Sci (Planning), Grad Dip URP, MPIA


Attachment 1 Summary of Qualifications and Experience for Robert Kelderman



Attachment 1 - Summary of Qualifications andSummary of Qualifications andSummary of Qualifications andSummary of Qualifications and Experience for Robert Kelderman

Name and Address Robert Henri Kelderman is a Director of Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, Town Planners

and Practices from Level 1, 283 Drummond Street, Carlton, in Victoria.

Qualifications and Expertise • Bachelor of Applied Science (Planning), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1983

• Graduate Diploma, Urban & Regional Planning (Distinction), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1988

Professional Experience • Director, Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd

• Engaged as a town planner since 1986, including 4 years in local government (Shire of

Diamond Valley, City of Kew and City of South Melbourne) followed by 24 years in

consulting (Henshall Hansen Associates for 9 years and Contour Consultants

Australia Pty Ltd since 1997).

Area of Expertise • Advice and assessment of land use and development proposals throughout Victoria

for planning authorities, government agencies, corporations and developers

(including for medium and higher density housing projects).

• Providing town planning of evidence for other VCAT and Panel Hearings for more than

20 years.

• Strategic planning (including preparation and project management of strategic plans

for commercial, residential, industrial and rural areas).

• Statutory planning (including preparation of new planning schemes and planning

scheme amendments).

Instruction which Defined the Scope of this Report

I received instructions from Equipe Lawyers to consider and comment on the town planning issues associated with the proposed amendment, as outlined in the introduction to my report.

Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon

• Inspections of the subject land and surrounding area.

• Refer below.

Documents Taken Into Account • The Knox Planning Scheme.

• The relevant provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme.

• The exhibited version of Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme, including

proposed Schedule 11 to Clause 43.04 Development Plan Overlay (DPO) titled; "Knox

Private Hospital Expansion".

• The documents supporting Amendment C132 prepared by various members of the

proponent's consultant team.

• Copies provided to me of the submissions to Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning

Scheme.

• The Knox City Council Ordinary Meeting Report and Council resolution relating to

Amendment C132 dated 22 April 2014, including the Council's adopted Amendments

to Schedule 11 to the DPO in response to submissions.

• The VPP Practice Note titled; 'Applying Incorporated Plan and Development Plan

Overlays (January 2003)'.

• The order of VCAT in Healthscope Limited v Knox City Council dated 8 July 2014 with

respect to Application for Review No. P192/2014.

• Correspondence to Planning Panels Victoria from Maddocks Lawyers, on behalf of

Knox City Council dated 16 July 2014, which has attached to it the Council’s preferred

version of Schedule 11 to the DPO This version differs slightly from the version

adopted by the Council on 22 April 2014.

Identity of Persons Undertaking the Work

I prepared this report with assistance from Nerelie Pugh, Associate, at Contour Consultants.



Attachment 1 - Summary of Qualifications anSummary of Qualifications anSummary of Qualifications anSummary of Qualifications andddd Experience for Robert Kelderman

Summary of Opinion Refer to Section 1 of my report.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

A→

B→

C→

Robert Kelderman

B. App Sci (Planning), Grad Dip URP, MPIA


Attachment 2 Proposed Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay (as currently preferred by Council)


Attachment 3 Correspondence from Stanton Kroenert, Woods Bagot Australia


Attachment 4 Suggested Amendments to Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay

PO Box 1040 Level 1⁄283 Drummond Street Carlton Victoria 3053

Telephone 03 9347 6100 [email protected] contour.net.au

Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd ABN 98 417 162 976 ACN 068 152 714

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme · • Correspondence to Planning Panels Victoria from...

Documents

Transcript of Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme · • Correspondence to Planning Panels Victoria from...