Frankston's Nepean Highway - Golden Mile or Rusty Row?
Mayday 20/1/11)
For what many believe should be the south east's golden mile, Frankston's Nepean Highway north of its Central Activities district is proving to be a sticky wicket for developers, the Frankston City Council and the community it services.
By any comparison, the strip is superbly situated. To the immediate west there is the bay's longest stretch of Banksia woodland that protects what many believe is Melbourne's best beach. To the east, most of the original blocks are bounded by the unique Kananook Creek. Its backdrop is the internationally listed wetlands. The area is well serviced by public transport, schools, hospitals, a university and TAFE and boasts far better than average cultural and sporting infrastructure.
However, a quick and dirty survey of the 5 kilometer length of Nepean Highway between Eel Race Road Carrum and Beach Street Frankston reveals over 25 vacant allotments, some with highly visible derelict buildings; many with permits for medium density development that date back to 2002 inclusive of a number consolidated sites, some of which are over 3000m2. So what's gone wrong?
Residents point to Frankston's planning scheme as being as being the route cause of the problem. They say the issue stems from Frankston Council's 1999/2000 decision to earmark the strip for higher density development without fully understanding the decision's implications and that at this time state planning policy relating to the Residential 2 zoning (since removed) was misinterpreted.
They say that ambivalence embodied in the planning scheme has produced development applications that are not well aligned either to local or market expectations. They also say that the planning scheme and its administration is delivering mixed messages and that while encouraging a different style of higher density development, it's not encouraging the same quality as Kingston or Bayside and is deterring many purchasers seeking detached or semi detached dwellings . They also say that the planning scheme has encouraged land banking and the warehousing of properties with permits and that a number of developers have lost their proverbial shirts account Frankston Council's promotional hyperbole.
An examination of approximately 35 Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) decisions and the relatively large number of long terms vacant sites appear to support their contention.
A recent VCAT presiding officer's decision (VCAT P636/2010) agreed with a previous panel's comments that provisions of Frankston's Design and Development Overlay 6 are poorly drafted . Residents say that its drafting is illogical - it encourages taller development (12 metres) when it should have been proscribed at 9 metres. They say had the height limit been maintained, a higher quality development would have been better encouraged and point to the vacant sites as proof. They also point to conflicting objectives in the planning scheme which on one hand seeks to afford protection to the Kananook Reserve, and the Creek's flood plain and on the other encourages a density of development that on the face of it neither the market or the locals appear ready for yet.
There's a certain desperation in Frankston to make things happen at any cost. Residents point to standards - they say that Frankston has been undersold. They also say that Councillors must play a greater role in shaping Frankston's planning framework and point to inconsistencies in the application of council decisions.
Frankston's Municipal Strategic Statement (the strategic basis of it's Planning Scheme) is currently under review. The review commenced in 2003.
A lot of money has been spent promoting Frankston. The root of the problem might population. While while electorate roll enrollments in the adjacent seat of Carrum from 2002 to 2010 grew by 3546, the electoral roll in Frankston has shrunk by 151. Mayday has not consulted a demographer but the figure speaks for itself as do the photographs below (and thank you both for your assistance & documents - you know who you are)
Link to Seaford Cabin Park proposed development
For what many believe should be the south east's golden mile, Frankston's Nepean Highway north of its Central Activities district is proving to be a sticky wicket for developers, the Frankston City Council and the community it services.
By any comparison, the strip is superbly situated. To the immediate west there is the bay's longest stretch of Banksia woodland that protects what many believe is Melbourne's best beach. To the east, most of the original blocks are bounded by the unique Kananook Creek. Its backdrop is the internationally listed wetlands. The area is well serviced by public transport, schools, hospitals, a university and TAFE and boasts far better than average cultural and sporting infrastructure.
However, a quick and dirty survey of the 5 kilometer length of Nepean Highway between Eel Race Road Carrum and Beach Street Frankston reveals over 25 vacant allotments, some with highly visible derelict buildings; many with permits for medium density development that date back to 2002 inclusive of a number consolidated sites, some of which are over 3000m2. So what's gone wrong?
Residents point to Frankston's planning scheme as being as being the route cause of the problem. They say the issue stems from Frankston Council's 1999/2000 decision to earmark the strip for higher density development without fully understanding the decision's implications and that at this time state planning policy relating to the Residential 2 zoning (since removed) was misinterpreted.
They say that ambivalence embodied in the planning scheme has produced development applications that are not well aligned either to local or market expectations. They also say that the planning scheme and its administration is delivering mixed messages and that while encouraging a different style of higher density development, it's not encouraging the same quality as Kingston or Bayside and is deterring many purchasers seeking detached or semi detached dwellings . They also say that the planning scheme has encouraged land banking and the warehousing of properties with permits and that a number of developers have lost their proverbial shirts account Frankston Council's promotional hyperbole.
An examination of approximately 35 Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) decisions and the relatively large number of long terms vacant sites appear to support their contention.
A recent VCAT presiding officer's decision (VCAT P636/2010) agreed with a previous panel's comments that provisions of Frankston's Design and Development Overlay 6 are poorly drafted . Residents say that its drafting is illogical - it encourages taller development (12 metres) when it should have been proscribed at 9 metres. They say had the height limit been maintained, a higher quality development would have been better encouraged and point to the vacant sites as proof. They also point to conflicting objectives in the planning scheme which on one hand seeks to afford protection to the Kananook Reserve, and the Creek's flood plain and on the other encourages a density of development that on the face of it neither the market or the locals appear ready for yet.
There's a certain desperation in Frankston to make things happen at any cost. Residents point to standards - they say that Frankston has been undersold. They also say that Councillors must play a greater role in shaping Frankston's planning framework and point to inconsistencies in the application of council decisions.
Frankston's Municipal Strategic Statement (the strategic basis of it's Planning Scheme) is currently under review. The review commenced in 2003.
A lot of money has been spent promoting Frankston. The root of the problem might population. While while electorate roll enrollments in the adjacent seat of Carrum from 2002 to 2010 grew by 3546, the electoral roll in Frankston has shrunk by 151. Mayday has not consulted a demographer but the figure speaks for itself as do the photographs below (and thank you both for your assistance & documents - you know who you are)
Link to Seaford Cabin Park proposed development