Endeavour Cove has an interesting planning history, having evolved over the past 20 years through implementation of several Comprehensive Development Plans (CDP), which were developed in the 1990s. The precinct is now almost fully developed, with a mix of residential and mostly marina based non-residential purposes, in buildings of up to six storeys.
In recent years however, the wording of the CDZ has been shown to create uncertainty about the process by which decisions could be made. There are also a number of ambiguous and / or inappropriate provisions contained within the control (at least in the context of contemporary planning practice). This includes an unusual exemption from the need to secure a planning permit for buildings and works in lieu of a requirement for a development consent by way of endorsement of plans by Council. Together these issues warranted a full review of the provision, a position with which the Panel agreed, finding:
Council is commended for taking the necessary steps to respond to the limitations of the existing planning provisions and developing fit for purpose controls that adopt contemporary planning practice and which seek to provide for clarity, certainty and orderly development. Such an outcome is a clear objective of recent planning reforms, Ministerial Directions, Planning Practice Notes and the Practitioner’s Guide.
John Glossop was engaged to provide an independent review of Amendment C205 following its exhibition. While providing broad support for the basis of the Amendment, John recommended a series of modifications including that the proposed parking rates specified in the draft Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1 (CDZ1) be removed and a Parking Overlay be pursued and that drafting changes be made throughout the CDZ1 and CDP to improve their functionality and clarity. The Panel adopted the vast majority of these changes finding:
The Panel agrees with Mr Glossop that the exhibited Comprehensive Development Plan requires further changes to fulfill its role as an incorporated document. The Panel considers that Council’s Part C and Final changes are generally appropriate. While there are many changes proposed they do not significantly change the content of the exhibited version and retain the intent of the document. They assist the readability of the document and remove unnecessary or confusing content and reinforce its role as assisting in decision making.
There was also debate at the Panel hearing around the use of mandatory height controls, with the Panel ultimately finding that they were appropriate in both residential and non residential parts of the precinct (although some prescribed heights were increased so as to be no lower than the range of existing buildings). Specifically, it found:
Precinct 5 can accommodate and absorb additional height given its mixed-use role, existing activities and relationship to the marina waterfront. Buildings of 4 to 6 storey scale in the commercial precincts will still add to a sense of differentiation from the wider neighbourhood, make an important local contribution to housing supply and choice, accommodate an appropriate mix of uses while remaining respectful of the established built form character where a recasting of the vision is not sought. In this context, a mix of mandatory maximum and preferred maximum heights is preferred in concert with the proposed street wall heights and setbacks.
If you require assistance in translating a strategic project into a statutory control or require an expert witness for a planning scheme amendment or other strategic project, please contact us on 9329 2288 or email mail@glossopco.com.au.
