Housing

Demand for housing on Phillip Island is increasing significantly.

If our planning scheme does not protect the special factors that make Phillip Island unique then we risk becoming another Melbourne suburb with large houses on small blocks and no gardens. But with penguins.

Is this appropriate for Phillip Island?

How many houses, people and cars can be accommodated on Phillip Island without destroying its uniqueness or expanding town boundaries?

Height of buildings is an important consideration because research shows people living in areas with poorly planned tall buildings have less sense of community and poorer health.

In fact, many European cities limit suburban residential building heights (such as Berlin, which has a five-storey limit) to prevent this.

The Bass Coast Planning Scheme controls this by applying height limits for different zones.

I always thought these limits were mandatory, but it seems that they are more like recommendations, with developers applying for waivers that are assessed on each case.

Island Voice believes height limits should be mandated maximums, granting waivers only for buildings of great community value, such as the community hospital or the Vietnam Veterans Museum’s hangar for restored warplanes.

Ensuring that there is no wiggle room with a mandated height makes it easier to enforce the rules by removing grey areas and makes it easier to defend decisions at VCAT.

In contrast, infill occurs when existing single house blocks are sub-divided to build multiple residences.

This is a common way to increase housing within town boundaries but, without careful planning, can result in a lack of supporting infrastructure – such as schools, hospitals and parking – for the increased population and can reduce amenity and local character.

The planning scheme simply refers to infill without defining what it should look like.

By contrast the Surf Coast Planning Scheme contains specific guidelines:

“Maintain the existing character typified by dwellings predominantly of single and double storey scale,” Surf Coast’s planning scheme states.

“Retain and enhance existing vegetation, including canopy trees, with a mixture of traditional coastal and indigenous species to strengthen the visual connection of the area with the coast. Maintain consistent setbacks from the front and side boundaries.”

There is a huge demand for more houses on Phillip Island but how many should we build?

The Surf Coast Planning Scheme quantifies housing densities very clearly – “achieving a density of 15 dwellings per hectare” – making it very easy to determine when densities are exceeded and providing clear guidelines for developers and planners.

Unfortunately, the Bass Coast Planning Scheme is not as clear.

Battle-axe blocks are a common feature when dividing existing blocks.

Bass Coast mentions them once: “Discourage the creation of ‘battle-axe’ allotments.”

By contrast Surf Coast mentions them 14 times, ensuring each block is of a reasonable size, common driveways are not counted as part of the area of a block and ensuring shared driveways in subdivisions do not run straight, preventing a gun barrel effect and adding interest.

Island Voice would like to see the Bass Coast Planning Scheme address such blocks in greater detail.

Demand for more housing inevitably leads to calls to subdivide larger lifestyle blocks.

Island Voice would suggest that as these were marketed to, and bought by, people who expressly wanted to live in an area with lower population density, they should be protected in planning schemes from subdivision unless the vast majority of owners in the development agree.

Another critical issue is dependent persons units, which are intended to provide temporary accommodation for people who need support and are removed when they move or die.

Being temporary in nature, they do not require a permit in the current scheme. Given our ageing community, this is likely to be a growing requirement and needs to be monitored to prevent legacy buildings remaining in place.

Island Voice would suggest dependent persons units should require a permit, with an annual check on the occupancy of such a building and including requirement for parking provisions to cover extra vehicles.

Such a provision would prevent dual occupancy on blocks that are not formally sub-divided.

As you can see, other planning schemes have been tailored to ensure appropriate development for special places.

Island Voice believes Phillip Island deserves such treatment and we will continue to advocate strongly for this.

But council needs real community feedback to understand what we want in our planning scheme.

Get involved and make your voice count.