Archive:  Amendments C114 (Macedon) and C115 (Mount Macedon)

Last Updated  23/12/16

See also Macedon-Mount Macedon Town Plan Archive

NEW  Action Required   Amendments C114 (Macedon) and C115 (Mount Macedon).  These are Implementing "Design Guidelines" To Protect Character??   Not on your nelly! 

(23/12/16 - P)  How does this sound:  zero front setbacks, two storey development, no preferred character, planning requirements able to be waived by council, street trees a minor consideration - in both towns.  And this: a Special Use Zone at Mount Macedon allowing McDonalds, and 'pole signs', with "small scale" development deleted. That's what you are getting with C114 and C115.   Submissions close 30 January, 2017.

Amendment C114 at Macedon includes a draft Design and Development overlay (DDO26), and changes to the Macedon Township Policy at Clause 21.13-6.

Amendment C115 at Mount Macedon includes a draft Special Use Zone schedule (SUZ6), and changes to the Mount Macedon Township Policy - and Framework Plan - at Clause 21.13-7.

Amendment information is available from Council's website although, as has happened before, some is missing: neither of the towns' Village Centre Studies or Design Guidelines documents, which underpin the amendments, are with the amendment documentation.

http://www.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Planning_Building/Planning_for_Our_Future/Town-Based_Projects/Macedon_and_Mount_Macedon

MRRA Says:

As a principle, enshrining strong development and design standards in the planning scheme, to preserve and protect character, has merit.   Alas, that's not quite what these amendments are doing.

A project of the previous council, the C114 (Macedon) and C115 (Mount Macedon) planning scheme amendments have their genesis in Village Centre studies adopted for both towns in late 2014.  The amendments are claimed to be putting the Design Guidelines that derive from those studies into the planning scheme.  Well, that's the theory, at least. 

The previous council wasn't going to exhibit any Design Guidelines - officers' recommendations for both towns were to just leap from adoption of Village Centre studies straight to amendments that would put unseen Design Guidelines into the planning scheme without further consulting council or community.  The big surprise came in late 2015 when a majority of the previous council voted against doing this for Mount Macedon.  As a result, draft Design Guidelines for both towns, along with a very incomplete draft Special Use Zone for Mount Macedon, were put out for community comment last May. 

Problems with the exhibited Design Guidelines included excessive use of "should".  Problems with the exhibited 'half' of a Special Use Zone schedule were obvious:  it allowed currently prohibited uses, and most of the zone schedule's provisions and requirements were missing.  Something that zone schedule did include were statements authorising council to reduce or waive planning permit application requirements for everything except signs.

In September 2016, the previous council voted to prepare planning amendments to put the Design Guidelines into the scheme, via a Design and Development Overlay at Macedon and a Special Use Zone schedule at Mount Macedon.  As was that council's habit, it gave council officers authority to make changes, without further consultation or council endorsement, prior to exhibiting the C114 and C115 amendments.   The Design Guidelines and zone schedule were then whisked off into council's back room to be translated into the amendments currently on exhibition, which have emerged with at times unrelated and unrecognisable content.  Yes, a lot of the former "should" language is gone, particularly at Macedon, but not all.  Some of the original "musts" have been wound back, replaced with new "should", "minimise" or "discourage" language.  Shifts in emphasis and issues being addressed dilute requirements for development, and too many of the original Design Guidelines are omitted and just aren't there at all in the amendments.

Yet council's official line remains the same, continuing to misrepresent these altered and weakened amendments as being good for Macedon and Mount Macedon.  However, as with other recent amendments (for example, Structure Plans at Riddells Creek and Kyneton),  the previous council's habit of watering down or deleting anything that put standards or the environment first, and of fudging policy to be less onerous and more 'flexible' for development/developers, is indelible.  Some of the changes made to the Design Guidelines in their translation into the C114 Design and Development Overlay and the C115 Special Use Zone certainly seem to favour potentially largish pub expansion at Mount Macedon, and diluted development standards for 19 Victoria Street, Macedon. 

These amendments are not delivering the protective planning that most of the community wants, and is being told it is getting.  MRRA can't see how, in their current form, these amendments are 'good' for either town.  Here are some of the issues with the amendments MRRA has detected to date:

C115 Mount Macedon:

• C115 rezones 5 existing Rural Conservation Zone titles to Special Use Zone 6 to promote economic development, and allow currently prohibited uses.

• C115's SUZ6 zone schedule attempts to not allow development of all of the land within the 2 largest titles being rezoned to Special Use, saying "avoid" development in parts of those titles because those areas are not suitable for development.  In itself, this is a shaky solution to rezoning more land than is intended for development.

• The attempt in the zone schedule to restrict development to part of the Special Use Zone is contradicted and undermined by changes C115 makes to the Mount Macedon Township Policy (Clause 21.13-7) where policy is changed to say the Special Use Zone - all of it - is the Mount Macedon commercial core/centre where development can occur.

• C115 opens the door for a 'McDonalds' at Mount Macedon.  The Mount Macedon Village Centre Study, Mount Macedon Design Guidelines, and the draft Special Use Zone schedule exhibited last May all said prohibit "Convenience Restaurant" (the planning definition for a McDonalds-type fast food business).   C115's Special Use zone schedule allows it.
• In the existing Rural Conservation Zone, advertising signs are restricted to Category 4 (sensitive areas - maximum limitation), and were also Category 4 in the draft Special Use Zone schedule exhibited last May (Category 4 only permits five types of signs).   C115 downgrades restrictions for advertising signs to Category 3 (high amenity areas - medium limitation), which allows 11 types of signs, including pole signs, internally illuminated signs, above verandah signs, and high wall, promotion and reflective signs - all currently prohibited.
• Last May, the draft Special Use Zone schedule limited development to "small scale".   C115 deletes the words "small scale", and allows office, bottle shop, shop, restaurant, tavern, exhibition centre, place of worship and hotel use and development without limiting the scale of the use and development through restrictions on floor size or number of patrons.  Note:  In the current Rural Conservation Zone, all of these uses are prohibited (except restaurant), as is any expansion of the Mount Macedon pub.  C115 allows all of them to happen, without being "small scale". 
• The Mount Macedon Design Guidelines specified setback requirements for development on each title, including up to 10m front and 5m side setbacks.  C115 resets these to a blanket zero (no) front setback along Mount Macedon Road and 2m side setbacks, for all development on all 5 titles being rezoned.
• The Design Guidelines said single storey or 6m height, with second storey only if behind and below the building fronting Mount Macedon Road.  C115 changes this to second storey with 8m height, with the second storey set back only 5 metres from the front wall of the ground floor development, which C115 now also allows to have zero front setback from Mount Macedon Road.
• The Design Guidelines' requirements for protecting canopy trees, historic values and heritage are deleted in C115.
• The Design Guidelines identified a Preferred Character for Mount Macedon, describing the character outcomes to be achieved by new development.  This is deleted in C115. 
• Achieving Ecologically Sustainable Development was included in the Design Guidelines, but it is not a requirement in C115.
• C115 replaces the Design Guidelines' requirement for all buildings and rooms to have windows to the street with  "All habitable rooms must have openable windows".  "Habitable rooms" is only relevant to residential development.
• The Design Guidelines' requirement for car parking to be at the rear of development is replaced with "side or rear".
• A requirement for future developments to minimise bushfire risk is replaced in C115 with "consider bushfire risk".
• C115 includes no new overlay protection for Mount Macedon's exotic (canopy and street) trees, even though the Mount Macedon Village Centre Study said consider it.
• C115 authorises council to reduce or waive application requirements for planning permits for use, and buildings and works.

C114 Macedon:

• C114 requires development to integrate with / be consistent with (variously) existing, village, streetscape and preferred character, none of which are identified / defined in C114.  The Design Guidelines identified and included a "Preferred Character";  C114 doesn't.
• The Macedon Design Guidelines identified 2 Key Opportunity Sites.  C114 identifies 3 (adds IGA). 
• C114 changes frontage setbacks for all "Key Opportunity Sites" (including 19 Victoria St) from zero setback along Victoria Street and 3m for other street frontages, to zero setback on all street frontages.
• 'All other' frontage setbacks are changed from the Design Guidelines' 3m setback, to zero or 3m setbacks.  Significantly more zero setbacks are allowed in C114 than in the Design Guidelines.
• All C114 setback requirements (at "Building Siting") retain "should" language - i.e. 'setbacks should be'...
• Design Guidelines' requirements for Key Opportunity Sites are changed or deleted:  not more than 6 metres height within 6 metres of rear boundary (deleted in C114), setbacks of 3m from rear boundary (changed to setback of 5m from rear boundary with residential zone only, in C114).
• The Design Guidelines said 8m maximum height for Key Opportunity Sites fronting Victoria Street - this is deleted in C114.
• The Design Guidelines said, elsewhere, maximum height of 8m for second storey development unless roof pitch exceeds 30 degrees, then maximum 9m height but with the second storey under the roof form.  With C114, maximum height can be 9m with second storey not under roof form if roof pitch exceeds 45 degrees.  C114 also applies these requirements to Key Opportunity Sites, including 9m height.
• C114 says second storeys are to be setback 5 metres from the street but this doesn't include second storeys under the roof form, creating potential for zero setbacks from the street for ground and second storey development.
• C114 changes the Design Guidelines'  maximum 50% 'site coverage' requirement (including car parking structures), to maximum 50% 'building' coverage, which excludes outdoor activity areas, allowing greater site coverage.
• The Design Guidelines wanted on-site parking to be at the rear of the development, but C114 doesn't, including for Key Opportunity Sites.  In C114, "on-site" is deleted, and parking can be at the rear or side.
• The Design Guidelines said all buildings and rooms must have windows to the street.  C114 replaces this with "All habitable rooms must have openable windows".  "Habitable rooms" is only relevant to residential development.
• The Design Guidelines said "avoid" bold and bright colours.  C114 says "discourage".
• At Landscaping, the Design Guidelines' said "retain, protect and incorporate established canopy trees..."  C114 changes this to "retain or incorporate landscaping and canopy trees..."
• The Design Guidelines said building and construction "must not" impact on established canopy trees, and "must avoid" tree protection zones.  C114 says "ensure" development does not impact established trees, and "minimise" encroachment into tree protection zones.
• Council is giving itself the authority to reduce or waive requirements for planning applications to provide reports on how a proposal responds to the Design and Development overlay's requirements.

The consequences of these amendments won't only impact local communities.  Does anyone really want a Maccas-style development at Mount Macedon?  Or large apartment-style development at Macedon?  Or street trees removed to accommodate (over-) development?

Everyone can help by putting in submissions by 30 January, objecting to Amendments C114 and C115.  This is a formal planning scheme amendment process, so clearly mark your submission with the amendment number (C114 Macedon, C115 Mount Macedon), objecting to the amendments as they have been exhibited, and requesting that neither be progressed.   The new Macedon Ranges council has the option of abandoning all or part of the amendments, or of reviewing, rewriting and re-exhibiting them. 

Minimum objectives for any rewriting would be to replace the favours, 'flexibility' and weaknesses in C114 and C115 with strong, unambiguous standards, 'starting points' and requirements (with no waivers), that prioritise and are genuinely sympathetic to protection of character and environment, and result in limited, small scale, low key, high quality development.   Nothing less will do in these extremely sensitive towns.