At the last council meeting, one item in particular highlighted the schemozzle that is the current Planning Scheme. It focused on transition zones between Diversity Areas and Minimal Change Areas. The application was on Dandenong Rd – Item 9.2 in the agenda.
This is not the first time that the issue of high rise/multiple storeys adjacent to minimal change areas has cropped up. Several meetings previously Penhalluriack noted the failure to address the issue of transition zones. Here’s what Magee said last week on this application:
MAGEE: (on the surface looks okay but had) the opportunity to stand in the back yard of one of the houses (affected) ….what I was faced with was looking up….(and seeing in time) 3 storeys of concrete looking down over a back garden…Problem I have is in diversity areas it’s all well and true and fitting…..but over the back fence is minimal change….so really what we’re imposing on minimal change is a housing diversity area…..I don’t know where you draw the line….do we respect the minimal change or do we respect the housing diversity area? I don’t think we can do both….I couldn’t live to doing that to someone (neighbours)…..(he chose minimal change to live in so that there wouldn’t be tall building next to him)…and I think a lot of these people have done exactly the same and I think it’s unfair of us to do that….
Even more damning is the fact that in August 2007 Spaulding and Esakoff requested a report on:
“That a report be prepared outlining what planning mechanisms/ tools are available to provide greater certainty for development outcomes in the buffer area between Housing Diversity and Minimal Change areas.”
We note:
- 4 years on, nothing has changed except that the problem has worsened
- Logic is again a severe casualty in the report – ie. no need for prescriptive criteria since VCAT doesn’t have to adhere to them!!!
- The report itself is full of self congratulations so that the recommendation is that nothing be done since Glen Eira is handling the problem marvellously well. We’ve uploaded the ‘report’ and invite comments from readers.
(diagrams and footnotes have been left out) - How much longer will councillors allow this situation to continue before they demand that the Planning Scheme is amended and that proper buffer zones are included around Activity centres and Housing diversity areas that front Minimal Change Areas?
- The ‘report’ resorts to dissembling quite often, especially in its claims that the majority of residents were supportive of the amendments. The real question is: how well did residents understand the implications of the amendment? How much information was provided?
How many more times must residents be assailed with hand wringing and ‘woe is us’ from councillors before they decide that a major part of the problem begins and ends with the Planning Scheme? When will they actually do their jobs and start setting policy?
Glen Eira Debates 
July 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Ya don’t have buffer zones cos that will cut down the number of new developments. Ya just do what Glen Eira does – hand them the keys to the city on a golden platter! I’m really getting fed up with all the crocodile tears by these incompetent councillors and the bullshit that comes out in officers reports. They never answer what’s asked and they never give details. It’s all rubbish and it is passed unanimously. Send the garbage back a couple of times, insist on proper reports, and see what Newton does then. Incompetence like this shouldn’t be rewarded time after time.
July 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM
Reading the uploaded report there were several times when I had to literally stop myself laughing out loud at the nonsense and contradictions that is contained in this lamentable effort. On the one hand we’re told as gleneira points out, that since VCAT is a law unto itself that there’s no point in introducing any real policy or even permanent guidelines or prescriptive formats. Yet, in the same breath we’re told that it’s thanks to the policy of council via its Amendment c25 that they’ve been able to channel development into their 80/20 divisions. They can’t have it both ways – either policy works, or it doesn’t! I also grinned quite a bit at this sentence: “. In the absence of local policies for Mitcham, VCAT put weight on State policy (M2030) over local opposition”. The contradictions are obvious – without structure plans in Glen Eira what’s the difference between us and Mitcham of that period? The backflip comes further on when we’re supposed to believe that structure plans, and permanent controls have downsides because (of all things) they “reduce flexibility”.
As a resident seeing my local streets destroyed through greedy overdevelopment, and the consequent traffic problems, trees being ripped out so that new driveways can be built, is not only disheartening, but criminal. In the meantime my rates have gone up another $400 this year. I’d like to know for what? My neighbourhood is destroyed, no new drainage has gone into streets, and I’m expected to sit back, grit my teeth and bear it. Receiving a report as that above only adds insult to injury. It reeks of hidden agendas and incompetence by both officers and councillors.
July 29, 2011 at 2:58 PM
This isn’t “incompetence” by officers. Not on this occasion at least. They are simply doing Newton’s bidding. They’ve obviously all learnt very well in regards to how words can say nothing and how to camouflage all the truths. Newton, Burke and Akehurst are wonderful teachers. But I guess they’re all looking out for their jobs so it’s best to shut up, toe the party line, and once again fool dumb and/or compliant councillors.
July 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM
The councillors are not dumb or stupid, they are good at getting what they want , by giving and then receiving in turn. This is politics.
July 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM
Hmmmmmm. So what does Lipshutz, Hyams, Pilling, and Esakoff want Glennie? Esakoff is happy with her photo in 11 times in the Glen Eira News.Magee probably gets a gesac well beyond his wildest dreams and Tang gets a job with councils lawyers. But what do the rest get? What does Forge, Lobo, Penhalluriack get out of licking you know what? Newton can’t sell too much more so revenue has to come from somewhere. Its build, build, build anywhere and as big and ugly as possible. He also has to pay a pretty big price to keep his sidekicks loyal and to keep writing the kind of reports that plug his line all the time. Or maybe just maybe they’re all running scared of Newton’s lawyers paid for by us mind you.
July 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Last year’s planning scheme review made it abundantly clear that nothing was going to change. Councillors had their opportunity then to ring in changes and make improvements. They didn’t take this opportunity. It’s thus a little hard to accept the bogus claims we’re hearing now that something needs doing. If Magee and some others are genuine then introducing required amendments shouldn’t be a problem. All that’s required is a motion and the successful passing of the motion. Unless councillors follow up with action then their words remain hollow and worthless. Playing to the gallery when it’s nearing election time isn’t my idea of being a councillor. As someone said it’s merely playing the politics of being reelected and should be seen for what it’s worth.
July 30, 2011 at 6:01 PM
Anonymous …. Lipshutz, Hyam, Tang, and Esakoff all have lots in common, they never take there eyes off the ball. For instant the Warriors getting the GESAC it wasn’t by mistake or miscalculation. I would look at the councillors who didn’t get upset with this outcome. And there you might find an answer.