We’ve repeatedly highlighted the inadequacy and shortcomings of Council’s ‘consultation’ methodology, methods and feedback loops. This was really apparent in the Planning Scheme Review which we’ve contrasted with the extensive approach(es) taken by Bayside. As further evidence of what can be done where there is a will and genuine attempt to gauge community feeling, we compare and contrast the questions that both Councils put to residents on the Planning Scheme.
All Glen Eira produced in its so called ‘discussion paper’ were vague statements not generally tied to specific issues and/or objectives and that were also dependent on an extensive knowledge of State and local Planning Policy that was not fully explained. Some examples were:
Does the MSS represent Glen Eira’s general planning policy directions?
Does it reflect sound planning principles?
Are the policies effective in terms of providing housing opportunities on the one hand and a level of protection to valued neighbourhoods on the other?
Do State Government ideals match local community expectations?
Bayside on the other hand is asking for residents’ feedback by directly linking their questions with the 34 page review (and numerous ‘fact sheets’). Questions are specific, open ended, wide ranging and always tied to the objectives and goals identified in the preliminary review. – ie
“Your thoughts about the Bayside Planning Scheme Review:
Through reviews of the Planning Scheme over the last 10 years a number of key issues/aspirations have been identified (refer to page 8 of the review).
Q1a. Do you agree with these key issues/aspirations on page 8 and are they still relevant today? Please list any new issues that you think should be included, in order of priority
Q2a. Do you think that the Bayside Planning Scheme adequately addresses the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8? If no, what do you think needs to be improved?
Q3. What additional strategic work should Council be undertaking to address the key issues/aspirations listed on page 8?
Q4. Do you find the Planning Scheme easy to use when either preparing or responding to a permit application? If no, what would make it easier to use?
Q5. What issues, if any do you encounter when using the Local Planning Policy Framework? Are they hard to use? Do they cause you problems? What are these problems?
Q6. Are the Zone and Overlays Schedules difficult to interpret? If so, which zones and overlays? Can you recommend any improvements?
Q7. Are you aware of any recent VCAT decisions that raise issues that are currently not addressed by the Bayside Planning Scheme?
Q8. Can you think of a property/area that you believe to be inappropriately zoned or have inappropriate overlay controls? If yes, what is the address and what do you think it should be zoned as (used for) and/or what overlay should it have/not have over it?
Q9. Do you think that there are any directions contained with the State Planning Policy Framework that the Bayside Planning Scheme does not implement?
Q10. How prescriptive do you think the Bayside Planning Scheme should be in relation to built form?
□ Prescriptive – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet mandatory height and setback controls.
□ Performance based – applications determined on the basis of whether they meet defined objectives.
Q11. Please use the space below to provide any other comments on the Preliminary Planning Scheme Review and ways the Bayside Planning Scheme can be improved. You may of course add additional pages if required.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Questions are good when you really want to know something. If you’ve already made up your mind what you’re going to do then there’s no need for real questions. Pretend that you care about people’s opinions like Glen Eira always does and frame questions so that their predetermined outcomes aren’t obvious and your safe legally. It’s a real art form at Glen Eira. They should run courses on how to hoodwink the public.
March 9, 2011 at 11:15 AM
To clarify – these are the ‘goals and aspirations’ from Page 8 of the Bayside Review and which emanate from in-depth consultation –
Throughout this consultation
the community has consistently raised a number of key issues and aspirations for planning in Bayside. These can be summarised as the need to:
· understand and manage the impacts associated with population growth and increasing density on residential amenity and neighbourhood character
· identify and protect the ‘village feel’ of the municipality
· retain and enhance Bayside’s identity and neighbourhood character through a focus on low rise development and the retention of open space
· identify appropriate locations to accommodate future residential growth and to ensure that new development is appropriately located and demonstrates a high quality of architectural and streetscape design
· ensure that residential development outside identified growth areas is well designed,enhances neighbourhood character and is sensitive to the local environment
· limit the development footprint within the municipality
· identify opportunities for development within and enhancement of activity centres
· ensure that development is undertaken in an environmentally sustainable manner
· address the future impacts associated with global warming and climate change in terms of adaptation and mitigation
· protect trees and open space which makes a significant contribution to the neighbourhood character and amenity of Bayside
· minimise the impact of new development and demolitions on the City’s cultural heritage
· plan for an ageing community and provide appropriate infrastructure
· provide improved and integrated transport options both within and outside the municipality with a view to enhancing transport links, including public transport, cycling and walkability
· plan for social diversity
· protect the coastline and natural heritage, including beach reserves and beach parks
· undertake long-term infrastructure planning to meet changing needs and demands
· protect and nurture indigenous vegetation
· provide equal access to open space for all users
· improve the ratio of open space provision to the population
· achieve developer contributions towards the provision and improvement of open space
· ensure that the quality of infrastructure keeps up with the rate of growth
· adopt a more proactive rather than reactive approach to planning.
Question: how many of these goals even got a look in at Glen Eira?
March 9, 2011 at 12:33 PM
The Glen Eira questions are illuminating. First we have the euphemism of ‘housing opportunities’ instead of developers’ paradise. Then in the same sentence there’s ‘valued neighbourhoods’. Didn’t know that some were more ‘valued’ than others. But the best is about reflecting ‘sound planning principles’. I can just see how the ordinary lay person who has no idea of town planning, or even knows what an MSS or a Planning Scheme is, will be able to really answer such a question. I’m really annoyed that this has the gall to pretend that it’s even a proper discussion paper much less the cornerstone of viable community consultation.
March 9, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Whether deliberate or not GlenEira, the operative word in your title is “could”. This implies volition and desire – all missing from this Council. What should happen is entirely different from what could happen. The “could” is conditional and unhappily the collusion between administrators and councillors intends to keep it this way.