The amendment affects all residential land across the shire. It puts land within the existing Residential 1 Zone of rural townships and foothills residential areas, into the Residential 3 Zone, and introduces Significant Landscape Overlays and Design and Development Overlays to the majority of residential areas across the municipality.

A major aspect of the Amendment is to establish planning controls, which direct new housing into identified ‘housing consolidation’ areas, with better access to services and facilities; and to limit residential developments in outer areas, referred to as ‘incremental’ and ‘least change’ areas.

The Amendment also seeks to better protect existing neighbourhood character across Yarra Ranges by modifying the current planning controls relating to subdivision, vegetation protection, building height, front fences and site coverage.

It will have major implications on the development of land in areas such as Mt Evelyn.

For the full suite of amended documents refer to Planning Scheme Amendments Online.

Article date: 16/5/2013

A Discussion Paper has now been prepared by the Shire of Yarra Ranges which identifies the policy context, outlines the demographic profile and provides an overview of both the current situation and plans and projects based on seven themes.  It also poses a series of questions about the future of the township.

You can view the full document on the Yarra Ranges website.

The closing date for providing your comments to Council is 18 March 2013

Posted: 7/3/2013

Three reformed residential zones will be introduced on 1 July 2013 which follows a detailed consultation process involving individuals, businesses, councils and community groups.

The existing Residential 1 Zone, Residential 2 Zone and Residential 3 Zone are to be replaced by three new residential zones:

• Residential Growth Zone
• General Residential Zone, and
• the Neighbourhood Residential Zone

More information can be found at the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

Article date: 7/3/13

Infill Developments

An ever developing aspect of projects at Millar | Merrigan evolve around infill multi-unit developments. These range from dual occupancies to larger scale developments involving numerous dwellings. Each multi-unit development is unique with our team of designers creating site specific building outcomes for each individual site. Particular care is taken to ensure infill developments are complimentary to existing dwellings on site, and should then be retained and respectful of the neighbourhood character. Most importantly we strive to deliver a product that meets your expectations and seeks Council approval.

Greenfield Sites

A substantial portion of projects at Millar | Merrigan comprise of new development areas including residential and industrial subdivisions. These include growth areas as well as land outside Metropolitan Melbourne. Each subdivision design is unique to the site with constraints and opportunities analysed to inform the design, resulting in a high quality development that meets requirements of best practice design.

Our team of urban designers, landscape architects and engineers, work together to offer cutting edge design outcomes that often include Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), native vegetation and integrated open space networks.

3D Imaging

Each of our multi-unit developments are drawn with the latest 3-dimensional imaging technology. This allows us to digitally capture the buildings in relation to the landscape and provide our clients with an invaluable resource in visualising the finished outcome. Furthermore these images offer the Council a helpful tool when assessing development applications and advertising them to the public.

Our digital imaging is also used for larger scale greenfield developments and landscape projects. These images have proven to be a helpful resource in marketing of land development proposals also.

Article date: 20/2/2013

The tables have turned from those ‘early’ days when land was cheap and housing construction relatively expensive. While cheaper land on the urban fringe is still the main option for many people seeking to enter the housing market, it is becoming increasingly unaffordable – not just in the sense of the actual cost of the house purchase but the cost of being geographically removed from their preferred living locations, which is their familiar neighbourhood close to friends, family and work.

The Victorian Government sought to address looming problems for the availability of well located and affordable housing in 2002 with the Melbourne 2030 strategy. A key aspect of the strategy is to increase the number of people living in existing urban townships (activity centres). This strategy has not been successful to date and while there have been changes to planning controls to promote development, the actual provision of housing has been limited. This is at least partly due to the relatively high cost of developing land within activity centres. In many cases the return for a developer in constructing an apartment building in the suburbs doesn’t stack up financially unless the site is in a highly sought after area (often close to the city centre) and therefore in a potentially controversial location. It is difficult to see that activity centres will increase the quantity of dwellings being delivered to anything like the number of dwellings per year predicted by Melbourne 2030 throughout metropolitan Melbourne in the medium term.

In my view the best opportunities for affordable housing are in existing suburbs and in regional towns and cities. Both these areas have existing social and physical infrastructure and have established communities. In many cases, particularly within existing suburbs, the need for additional housing comes from people within an existing community: such as ‘empty nesters’ who are downsizing; young singles wishing to leave home; or parents from a split family.

In many cases, the density of development in the suburbs in previous decades was much lower than densities now being delivered at the urban fringes. Re-development of the suburbs has been happening to provide infill for some time now and provides a valuable source of additional housing within existing communities. This type of infill development needs to continue and can gradually provide a substantial redevelopment of the middle suburbs adding much needed additional housing.

Regional towns and cities provide an excellent opportunity for affordable housing both for the existing community and for new people seeking to join an established community. In many cases, an increased population can benefit regional towns by improving the viability of local businesses. The same goes for schools and sporting clubs in regional towns that are struggling to maintain the numbers to be viable.

The urban fringes and regional towns will continue to play a key role in providing a (relatively) low cost entry point to the housing market for many years. Re-development of urban towns (activity centres) are likely to provide for significant numbers of new dwellings in future decades. However, it is the substantial but gradual re-development of the middle suburbs to a density that makes better use of land and allows for existing members of the community to remain in an area by increasing supply and variety of dwellings that provides the best immediate opportunity for an increase in affordable housing.

It sounds so simple! But the difficulty is that it requires a change to existing suburbs. The community generally recognises that change is necessary to achieve important planning goals; however the ‘not in my backyard’ attitude is a strong influence on local planning issues. It is not reasonable, in my view, to expect residents to embrace change in their neighbourhood or to give residents an expectation that they can stop changes that are aimed at increasing housing density in accordance with overarching state planning policies. There have been many groups established to protect valued neighbourhood character. I am not aware of any lobby groups with a contrary view: to promote appropriate infill development as an important mechanism for adding to the existing housing stock within communities and assisting communities to be sustainable. It is perhaps unrealistic to expect that they will. And unless the State Government champions a substantial change to existing planning controls, the weight of local politics will continue to limit the amount of infill development to a level that will have a minimal impact in meeting existing housing demand.

Where areas have a neighbourhood character that is of state significance, these areas should be protected. Elsewhere I believe the balance should shift from policies aimed at maintaining the status quo to those that recognise that to achieve affordable housing will require substantially more houses at a necessarily higher density than has occurred in past decades.

The inner suburbs of Melbourne have many areas with highly regarded character. Often these areas are protected by mechanisms such as Heritage or Neighbourhood Character overlays. Interestingly, many of these suburbs have far higher densities than much of the middle and outer suburbs, and they enjoy benefits such as the ability to walk to surrounding shops and excellent public transport.

I have two specific ideas to support the sustainable increase in affordable housing through the progressive infill of existing suburbs.

The first is to provide for some infill development ‘as of right’ in the same way that in most cases a single dwelling on a vacant allotment is ‘as of right’ provided the dwelling meets certain standards contained in building regulations. The ability to avoid lengthy and costly town planning disputes could be a powerful incentive to developers to meet ‘as of right’ development criteria which could include things like: a maximum building footprint, maximum number of bedrooms, and inclusion of features that promote sustainability. Existing controls for protecting amenity of surrounding residents would continue to be included thereby protecting people’s rights just as the building regulations do now. This initiative would increase the supply of well located, affordable and sustainable housing to serve the needs of our communities without creating the battlegrounds that often spring up over this type of development.

Only a small percentage of houses on existing lots within established suburbs are situated in such a way and on land that is of a sufficient size, that redevelopment is viable. Many of these houses are in reasonable condition and it is not often that housing in the middle suburbs is in a state that would encourage demolition for a total redevelopment. Many houses however have a large, underutilised resource: the backyard. My second idea is to utilise this resource to provide well located and affordable rental accommodation. In many areas there is an ability to have a second living area in an outbuilding separated from an existing house for the use of a dependant relative (a ‘granny flat’), there are also many older houses that have a bungalow in the backyard. These are often for the use of a member of the household but they are also commonly rented out. However, the ability to have such accommodation (unless legitimately associated with a dependant relative) is now very limited as the planning controls are much more restrictive than the ‘granny flat’ era. It would not take a huge leap to modify these existing planning controls to extend the dependant persons unit provisions to allow accommodation for renters who are not a dependant relative of the homeowner. Existing provisions such as the size and the requirement that the dwelling needs to be relocatable could be retained. This would give homeowners the opportunity for a new income stream and potentially allow some residents to remain in locations that they might otherwise have to leave. Such a scenario can provide a good transition for a 20 to 30 year period by which time the older housing stock is probably ripe for renewal and land values will likely ensure that a typical quarter acre block can be redeveloped in a manner that will reflect the needs of the community at that time.

At the moment, a dependant person’s unit built in a backyard must be removed once it is no longer being used for the intended purpose. It doesn’t make sense that this should happen when people, particularly singles or small households, are being forced to live away from the community they are a part of and rental prices continue to soar.

Simon Merrigan is a Director of Millar | Merrigan, an award winning multi-disciplinary company specialising in consultancy for a wide range of land and housing development projects. The firm incorporates the professions of land surveying, civil engineering, town planning, urban design, landscape architecture and architectural design.

Article date: 3/10/2008

The business name was changed to Millar and Merrigan in 1979. As a result of health problems, Paul resigned in the early 80′s and shifted to Queensland.

The original office (which still exists) was a small shop, as part of a larger building, at 66 Maroondah Highway Croydon (on the corner of Ryland Avenue). As the office grew we relocated to 34A Main Street Croydon, from there to 21 Coolstore Road, and in the last couple of years to 126 Merrindale Drive.

The firm commenced as a Surveying Practice, and in the very early years was exceptionally fortunate in being joined by Graeme Edwards and Peter Fahy. Our expansion into Engineering resulted from the acquisition of the irrepressible Geoff Guy (1937-1996), internal qualifications and the employment of professional staff have now resulted in further expansion into Town Planning, Landscape Architecture and Project Management. We were one of the original firms to provide a total Land Development package of professional services, and we are different in that we are geared to service the broadest possible client base, from everyday problems to planned communities.

In 2013…

We have been proud to maintain a healthy workforce and the following staff (many of whom now hold senior positions in the business) have over 15 years of service with Millar Merrigan.

Peter Merrigan, Mike Jordon, Jamie Kenyon, Simon Merrigan, Michael Hales, Sean Ryan, John Knibbs, John Powell, Bradley Terjesen and Gary Jordan.

The changes were initiated in an attempt to simplify the previous system and create a more equitable system for developers, however in many ways it has become more complicated. The line between ‘distribution’ assets and ‘reticulation’ assets (which was a major area of dispute in the past) still remains an issue because there is no clarification of this distinction, and too much relies on the decision of the water authority regarding asset sizes.

The position regarding costs associated with reticulation assets, which previously were the sole responsibility of the developer, has now changed for the better. The new determination states that the developer can only be required to pay for ‘their share’ of the reticulation asset, and that the water authority should fund the remainder – with the power to seek similar ‘shares’ as further development proceeds.

However, there are still many issues in the new process related to bringing forward costs for developments deemed to be ‘out of sequence’. Most specifically, the potential for reduced levies in these circumstances and as previously stated, the classification of an asset as a ‘reticulation’ or ‘distribution’.

Millar | Merrigan have spent a considerable amount of time learning about these changes and discussing them with the various water authorities. We are in an excellent position to assist you through the new process and outline how the changes may affect your project.

The New ‘Deed of Agreement’ System

All Melbourne-based water authorities have introduced a new Deed of Agreement system for all works carried out in the installation of water mains and sewer reticulation on new land developments.

Whilst the systems introduced by the different water authorities have similar elements, unfortunately there are also a lot of differences between them, which complicates and lengthens the process.

The basis of the new system is that the developer, water authority, consultant and water and sewer contractors all have to sign a Deed of Agreement that is designed to ensure that the works are:

• Constructed to the particular authority’s standards
• Taken off maintenance in a timely manner
• Accountable by all parties involved

Whilst this is a worthwhile objective it has added a number of additional steps in the approval process and lengthened the time required to get works going on site. One of the major requirements is to identify all parties that will be required to sign the Deed, most specifically the water and sewer contractors – as it is they (not the principle contractor) who are required to sign the Deed.

How Can Millar | Merrigan Help?

We have a Quality Assurance system (QA) that covers all aspects of water mains and sewer reticulation, as well as full industry accreditation for this work. Because each of the water authorities has a different system, we advise of the specific requirements to ensure that the Deed of Agreement application proceeds quickly – this new Deed system often becomes a critical time factor and it is essential to make this process as efficient as possible to expedite the works. Our consultants have extensive experience, industry contracts and processes in place to efficiently negotiate the bureaucratic minefield involved in dealing with all the different water authorities.

We undertake the major part of the Deed of Agreement process – the preparation and printing of the Deed documents and arranging their execution. This is just one of the steps involved to get construction approval, and it is essential that this be started as early as possible. Other steps we can facilitate include site surveys, plan preparation, supervision of works, design, construction and asset recording plus all documentation and administration for each part of the project.

We understand that the timing of works and meeting your deadlines is critical. We can also give advice on cost effective design and construction methods, and are tenacious enough to challenge the authorities for your benefit to ensure the success of your project.

Millar | Merrigan prides itself on results and finding the right team to complete your project. Read more about ‘Our People‘ or Contact Us today.

Article date: 3/2/2009

Download Millar | Merrigan’s Melbourne 2030 Audit

Article date: 23/9/2007