With no false modesty, Glen Eira Debates is taking at least some credit for the fact that the council submission has belatedly appeared via a link on Council’s home page!! We’ve uploaded it here.
We also provide below a verbatim listing of Council’s recommendations. Residents should carefully note the position taken on Height Limits. We urge all residents to compare this effort – tone, content, solutions, with what the other councils recommend and see as vital for their municipalities.
HEIGHT LIMITS
Target: The current approach to height limits is flawed. Height limits are most needed to protect areas earmarked for gradual or very limited change; the majority of Melbourne’s residential areas. Yet there are no tools to achieve this. Planning tools are potentially available to impose height limits for activity centres where more intense development is appropriate to be channelled (such as structure plans).
Proposed Solution: Introduce controls which enable mandatory height limits to be set in residential areas.
Environment
Proposed Solution: A State-wide approach to environmental sustainability is needed. The State Government should introduce a planning scheme control which complements the ‘star’ standard in Victoria’s Building Code. This control can be implemented through a ‘particular provision’ of the planning scheme.
VCAT
Proposed Solution: Amend the VCAT Act to require VCAT to implement Council policy. This is not simply a one sided solution aimed at benefiting local government. Yes, it will raise the status of local planning policies in VCAT decisions. However, this will also challenge local government. It will put greater pressure on local government to apply its own policies. More importantly, it will put greater pressure on local government and the DPCD to ensure local policies are clear, relevant, and logical.
Infrastructure
Proposed Solution: The State Government to take the lead in coordinating public authorities in the provision of infrastructure for activity centres so that improvements are directly linked to the increased demand/load of new development.
Local Planning Policy
Proposed Solution: A shift from policy to control based approach takes the difficulty away from interpreting policy, for all parties involved in the planning process. However, this requires the availability of controls from the State Government which can properly and completely replace policy and express policy aspirations. There will still be a need for some policy to assist with decision making. In this case, the State Government should allow the drafting of explicit and clear policy
Public Open Space Contributions
Proposed Solution: Enable inner and middle ring municipalities such as Glen Eira to obtain significantly higher developer public open space contributions. Shift the ability to obtain a public open space contribution from the subdivision stage to the development stage, to ensure multi-unit residential developments pay a public open space contribution. State Government to encourage multiple uses of public authority land (such as school playgrounds and the Caulfield Racecourse) as a means of providing additional open space in metropolitan Melbourne and Glen Eira. Council urges the State Government to encourage schools and the racecourse to cooperate and embrace this initiative
Time
Proposed Solution: Legislate for timeframes for the planning scheme amendment process for proponents, Local Government, and State Government.
Objections
Proposed Solution: Legislate clearly defined tests to what constitutes a valid objection, or valid submission, in the case of planning scheme amendments
Xmas Periods
Proposed Solution: Legislate changes to enable the stopping of the statutory clock during the Christmas holiday period.
Glen Eira Debates 
October 13, 2011 at 5:48 PM
If the planning scheme is designed properly (prescriptive) there will be no grounds for appeal. Takes all the stress out of planning. No need to have Councillors making town planning decisions just the planning officers ticking boxes.
October 13, 2011 at 6:37 PM
I’m not a planning guru as I think I’ve admitted previously. To my layman’s eye this submission is nothing more than a self-promoting exercise with no intention of addressing any of the problems that concern the people who live in the municipality. I’m horrified to read that on height limits there is no desire to control what happens in activity centres. It therefore means that this council is quite prepared to allow 10, 20, or even higher residential and commercial developments in these areas.
The submission also seems to focus on ensuring that more money comes into council pockets and that the work load for officers is reduced. There is no mention of the fact that it is council itself which determined that certain suburbs would have tiny levies placed upon development when other councils insisted that there be 5% across the board.
This submission does nothing except try to limit objector’s rights and to continue on the merry way that this council has decided it wants to go – pro development, but big time.
I am fully convinced that nothing will improve the amenity for residents until the planning scheme is thrown out in its entirety and a new scheme planned with full community consultation. This will take the removal of the current administration and the vast majority of councillors.
October 13, 2011 at 7:30 PM
We elect Governments to make laws which includes planning. Having community consultation does not work. What percentage of people participate in the consultation? I suggest less than 1%. What percentage of people vote in a State election? About 90%.
When they take away the ideas based on self interest you get down to the nitty gritty. My observations are that the people that take an interest in town planning are mostly old farts. Planning is for the future. Most of the old farts won’t be part of the future.
October 13, 2011 at 7:40 PM
I prefer resident self interest any day compared to developer self interest. By the way, when you are serious about involving the community you do get them interested. It all depends on how you do it and how genuine you are. Ever thought that there might be some pretty cluey people out in the community rather than the old farts that have been running Glen Eira for decades too long. Longevity breeds laziness and contempt and reluctance to change. That’s the planning department at this council – definitely old farts or young upwardly mobile yes men/women who have no interest in the residents or the local amenity. They want to keep their jobs full stop.
October 13, 2011 at 9:28 PM
There’s not much substance to the Glen Eira submission. Most of it involves minor changes to current legislation with the expected motherhood statements about local control and the VCAT issues. It’s eye opening then to have a read of the Port Phillip lengthy and considered submission where they cover an enormous range of issues that go beyond the superficial. As I was reading I thought that people might be curious to compare those things that I found really important and which don’t even rate a mention in the Glen Eira effort.
“It is imperative that the planning system strongly focuses on achieving good planning ‘outcomes’ rather than ‘processes’. This can be achieved by creating a high-level planning vision with measurable outputs, and providing Local Governments with the autonomy to tailor the system to achieve the outputs they require for their communities.
Similarly, the review has the potential to develop a planning system that better reflects communities’ changing expectations and aspirations, including a greater emphasis on environmental impacts, including planning for climate change impacts, such as rising sea levels and for environmentally sustainable design and water conservation initiatives while protecting heritage.
CoPP would like to see a well resourced and coordinated Victoria-wide approach towards the key emerging contemporary planning issues of climate change, ecologically sustainable development (ESD) and housing affordability. The State Government must take a leadership and coordination role to allow the planning system to efficiently and effectively respond to a changing environment and to a high level of community expectations in regards to these challenging areas of growing concern to all local communities
The new ‘whole of Government’ Metropolitan Strategy must:
establish a long-term bi-partisan vision for Melbourne – to inform future urban growth and change and associated planning for housing, employment and infrastructure
embed sustainability (economic, environmental and social) as the overarching principle guiding future urban strategies and policies
ensure that land use, transport and infrastructure planning are truly integrated
ensure that Melbourne’s future growth is considered in an holistic manner and not only focuses on housing growth, but on all components of urban planning that contribute to liveability and sustainability; including community infrastructure, jobs and open spaces.
Currently, the only mandatory requirements for sustainable design in the built environment are energy efficiency requirements enforced by the building code, which only regulate the thermal performance of building envelopes. There are other equally important issues that are not currently regulated, including integrated water cycle management, building materials, indoor environment quality, transport, waste management, urban ecology, ongoing building and site management and other energy efficiency issues, in addition to the thermal performance of building envelopes, including shading and passive solar design.
In the context of an aging population, CoPP also considers that new housing must meet minimum standards for accessibility, adaptability and visibility to address changing household lifecycle needs and the needs of persons with a disability.
Permits – The prescribed processes of the existing Act are basically sound. Some minor amendments to the permit process will make a difference in the functionality of the permit system. CoPP does not support any changes that would dilute the ability for the community to participate in the process.
clarify notice requirements to provide specific provisions about the mandatory extent of advertising; for example, liquor licence applications (minimum 50m radius from centre of property)
October 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM
There’s been stacks of consultation meetings with councils all over the state but Glen Eira isn’t mentioned as showing up to a single one of these. That’s how interested they are in reform and maybe learning something from other councils.
October 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM
What is there to reform. The grass gets cut at the footy ground, my bin gets emptied and a bloke come and sweeps my street from time to time. What more could I want. Should we be like Port Phillip and waste money on climate change (millions) or social inclusion policies. Not the role of Local Government.
October 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM
Actually, Anon, much to my regret I used to be like you – just wanted the grass cut, bins emptied and streets kept clean. Then in a minimal change area Council approved a 3 storey 20 unit building on the next door corner block. My beloved home of 20 years is now constantly overshadowed (heating bills have soared) and at least 10 of the units get more enjoyment out of my backyard than I do. Not to mention an inability to park on the street (to do a simple drop off) in front of my house because that’s where the little used second car of the unit dwellers is.
So Anon I now not expect the simple routine tasks from Council but I also expect that Council adheres to their own planning policy, even if it is weak, and consider the residents amenity.
October 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM
It is outrageous that the “Glen Eira City Council” submission was submitted without first being ratified by a Council meeting. I don’t accept that the Director City Development can speak on behalf of the entire Municipality without scrutiny, particularly on such a sensitive and political topic. The Mayor, by signing the submission, has effectively endorsed all the views expressed. That includes the coverage of “Heritage” issues, around which she has a conflict of interest.
Council’s Housing Policy is far from fair, despite the submission’s claim, and that is explicitly by design. In practice Council *does not protect* the amenity of the existing residents in the areas it has targetted for large-scale development. It does so fully admitting there is a loss of amenity for those residents. Worse, it claims the reasons for such blatant discrimination is so that the amenity of residents in the “Minimal Change” areas can be protected. There’s no way I endorse discrimination, whether based on sex, age, religion, or postcode.
Next there’s the use of oxymorons such as “environmentally sustainable design”. Improving efficiency is a good thing, but unbounded growth isn’t. The developements that Jeff Akehurst champions aren’t exemplars. They make lousy use of solar energy, fail to utilise roof spaces for passive recreation, and are placing an unsustainable burden on existing infrastructure. Its sad when you see 20 clothes-dryers for 20 individuals being touted as the future.
VCAT has been the target of much criticism, almost all of it well-deserved. What gets me is that Council engages in the same behaviours that it criticizes VCAT for. Neither applies the Planning Scheme when it suits them. All that is left is that they disagree on the circumstances when policy violations should be waived. VCAT, correctly in my opinion, has rejected several Council policies. That’s why we see 2- and 3-storey developments in Minimal Change areas. The arbitrary drawing of boundaries on a map is a hallmark of the lack of careful thought given to its policy. Much more effort should be given to strong policy that constrains the size of development based on the character, mass and scale of the neighbouring properties. Then we could offer the same protection to a single-story dwelling wherever they are in the municipality. Over time we would still have higher density apartments emerge to service as particular market need, but it would be more respectful and moderated.
The greatest criticism of all is the failure to integrate infrastructure with planning. In effect Council doesn’t do planning. It responds to crises. It has chosen to heap the majority of development into targeted areas, overburdening their infrastructure, and now admits it doesn’t have the money required to support the increased demand. Its economic lunacy. Far from increasing usage of underutilized assets as per Melbourne 2030, it has created a very expensive problem that governments at all tiers are running away from.
Its laughable to read Council cares about creating safer activity centres. Its their policy to attract cars to them. Instead of ensuring services are closer to where people live, the policy is for residents to drive to activity centres. The mess on the corner of Dandenong and Koornang Roads is a blatant example of policy failure. And painting white lines on a road and calling it a bike lane doesn’t do much for safety either, especially when cyclists have to deal with parked cars on the streets (because Council doesn’t believe in large-scale developments meeting their own parking needs). Pedestrians are barely considered, which is why we now see no basement driveway complying with AS2890.1-2004.
Instead of fighting for a meaningful Drainage Contribution Plan Overlay contribution, Council scrapped it. It refuses to apply its own planning scheme with respect to site coverage and permeable soil, depending on the size of the development. The bigger and richer you are, the less you have to comply. And to hell with ResCode provisions concerning overshadowing if waiving them means you can squeeze in a few more units.
I don’t see much prospect of restoring integrity to the Planning System, as currently practised in Glen Eira, with the current regime. Its time for regime change.