This item must surely win the award for obfuscation and keeping everyone in the dark. Here we have a 2 page officer’s report proposing the removal of the Commercial Centre Policy from the Glen Eira Planning Scheme. One page is fully taken up with the processes involved in seeking an amendment – ie. permission to advertise, submissions, perhaps a panel, etc. The first page is nothing more than waffle, and we believe a deliberate attempt to disguise what is really going on and the motives behind such a move. When any amendment is proposed, residents have every right to expect the following:
- Clear, comprehensible, and comprehensive information as to the reasons which justify the amendment. In this case, all the rationale states is that the original policy dates from 1998 and is ‘redundant’. Not good enough we say. What’s wrong with updating and improving a policy rather than removing it entirely?
- No explanation is given as to the potential ramifications if the policy is removed. What will it mean to traders? To residents? To the neighbourhood? To those little shopping strip centres that are already struggling against the big ones, Chadstone and now the C60 stores? Where are the statistics, planning strategies – in short, where is the evidence that this policy is now ‘outdated’ as claimed and that the municipality will be better off without Clause 22.04 remaining in the Planning Scheme?
- We also wonder whether the removal of the Commercial Centres policy is simply one way of declaring open slather for all forms of (residential) development and council washing its hands of all strip shopping centres except for the big three – Centre Rd, Carnegie & Elsternwick. So much for enhancing, developing, and maintaining local strip shopping! So much for looking after this sector of the community!
If councillors pass this as stands then we believe they are again not fulfilling their obligations as councillors. They must question in depth this proposal and not simply sit there and rubber stamp everything that is stuck under their noses. Such a report should never be accepted. It is bereft of detail, logic, and argument. It remains a ‘report’ in name only and certainly a below par effort. But then again, perhaps this is the objective – to get something through with as little fuss, furore, discussion and debate as possible? Rule by stealth perhaps? Make up your own mind when you read these paltry few pages.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 18, 2011 at 1:09 PM
I admit that I don’t know too much about this policy, but I have read the Officer’s Report and would say that it is definitely lacking. Changing something as important as this in any Planning Scheme should in my view contain far more detail – not only for residents but also for councillors. Can’t help wondering how many of them are really au fait with the Planning Scheme and to what extent there is full discussion of the implications of adding or removing something. This kind of report doesn’t help the situation at all.
September 18, 2011 at 4:51 PM
Local shopping strips are dying and this suits Glen Eira Council down to the ground. With only the big 3 coming into calculations, the rest can go to hell and make way for major residential developments or gigantic conglomerates of one shop. It all fits into a planning vision that doesn’t give a stuff about local amenities and fostering the small retailer and trader.
September 19, 2011 at 7:05 AM
You have no idea how silly you sound making acertions that are unfoundered but fit with your ethos, whatever that is. Constructive remarks are worthy but wide reaching statements as yours do yourself no credit. Best you always remain anonymous that would be the smart thing to do.
September 18, 2011 at 9:50 PM
The blog has had commentary recently on councillor assemblies and what decisions are made in these meetings. It’s pretty odd then that this Amendment doesn’t seem to feature anywhere in the Records of Assembly reports. If councillors are expected to vote on something then the argument would be that they’ve already been briefed in these meetings. It doesn’t seem to have been the case. That leads to some important questions – has this amendment been dumped on councillors without any previous discussion deliberately so that when they do vote all they’ve got to go on is the measly one page of justification and that’s it? Even if it’s discussed prior to next week’s council meeting I would expect that given the full agenda that this item would be lucky to get more than 5 minutes airing time. This is not the way to make important decisions or to run a council.
September 18, 2011 at 10:05 PM
I’m going to invoke Hanlon’s Razor to explain why this item appears. It can’t have been from resident feedback as part of the so-called Planning Review. Of all the matters I hears residents raise, it wasn’t the Commercial Centres Policy.
If local policies had to be effective and relevant and clear and guide decision making, then its the wrong policy to start with. The argument presented by the officer is that there should be no change to the policy–its just unnecessary because each of the 18 bullet points in the policy can be found in MSS (21.06 Business?) or “Business section” of SPPF (17.01 Commercial?).
Now I don’t believe that, but that’s irrelevant. The process of amending the Planning Scheme gives us all an opportunity to make informed comment when Council has to publish its rationale and seek public input. The question I have is about the cost of removing something that is “redundant”, rather than spending time and effort on improving lousy policy. If being 13 years old is sufficient, then lets turf the Urban Villages policy. Has anybody seen the “Urban Village Structure Plan”, which is listed as a reference document to several clauses (including 22.04)?
Since “the big 3” is being raised, its timely to remind people that back in 1999 Council artificially shrunk Glenhuntly and expanded Carnegie boundaries. The private reason was to claim the additional floor space from Glenhuntly retail premises to justify classifying Carnegie as an Urban Village (something about 20000 sq ft of retail space as a threshold). Subsequently that chicanery led to the Urban Villages policy that Jeff Akehurst is so enamoured with and wishes to take personal credit for. To this day Council refuses to accept State Government’s classification of Glenhuntly as a Major Activity Centre.
Being a Major Activity Centre just means the residents will not have their amenity protected. Although not contained in the Planning Scheme, there is an unofficial policy that says Rescode doesn’t apply. The diversity of shops is slowly disappearing too. Under the urban ghetto policy, the most attractive economic activity in the shopping centre is food–either restaurants or takeway food outlets. Other kinds of services can’t sustain the rentals that food outlets can, so one by one they vanish. Although I have always made a point of patronizing my local shops where I can, increasingly more of my money ends up being spent at Chadstone.
We did get a huge “library and community centre”, albeit at the expense of a children’s playground and bulldozing of its trees. For some funny reason VicRoads didn’t expect a huge crowd to its information session held in the centre, where they explained yet again there is *no* money for grade separation of level crossings in SE Melbourne electorates. Large as it is, the centre is struggling to cope with community feeling about how they have been treated by Council and the planning system.
September 18, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Council received a $40,000 grant from the state govt to help fund structure planning for Glen Huntly Activity Centre. They sent the money back!!!! Structure plans are anathema to Newton and Akehurst resulting in piecemeal, adhoc development throughout the municipality. We’ve said it before and say it again – the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is a schemozzle and the only beneficiaries are developers – certainly not residents.
September 19, 2011 at 9:25 AM
We’ve just been through one of the most stupid amendment sagas on record – the heritage property at Hawthorn/Seaview Rd. This exercise has cost plenty. Now this stupid council is about to embark on another such exercise with the C93. It might be okay to get the ball rolling when you know exactly the benefits but here nothing is known. I would have thought that it’s councillors duty to save money and not act like millionaires epecially when it’s not their money. Before anyone goes down the path of spending thousands and thousands plus staff time they had better make damn sure that they have all the necessary information and understand fully the consequences of what they’re doing.
September 19, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Dead easy to spend other people’s money to help out a mate.
September 19, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Never, never, never believe anything in the MSS. Here’s the perfect example from this council – “Discourage large sports and entertainment facilities of metropolitan, State or national significance in out-of-centre locations unless they are on the Principal Public Transport Network and in locations that are highly accessible to their catchment of users”. Must have forgotten all this when gesac was planned.