This VCAT appeal concerned a 5 storey (and 79 unit) development in Dudley St. For the full decision see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2011/2032.html
“The local planning policy framework has some inconsistency regarding development in Dudley Street. The Caulfield campus of Monash University is identified in the Municipal Strategic Statement as the Phoenix Precinct. This area is the preferred location in Glen Eira for higher density housing and is an area where significant change is expected[2]. Whilst Dudley Street is within close walking distance to the Phoenix Precinct, its western end including the review site is identified as an area of ‘minimal change’ and its eastern end close to Dandenong Road is identified as an area of housing diversity. Local policy for minimal change areas seeks
to:
Protect and enhance existing low intensity, low rise character.
Cater for new single dwellings and multi unit developments, provided development is consistent with surrounding use, character and scale.
- Student housing is also encouraged to be located in close proximity to Monash University Caulfield campus where it would have good access to public transport, commercial, commercial, educational and recreation facilities
- The responsible authority and Ms Moser opined that increasing the height of the two buildings would be inconsistent with the designation of the area as one of minimal change.
- I accept that this proposal would not be consistent with policies for a minimal change area if little change was occurring in the area. Clearly this is not the context that applies to this review site and this proposal. Two buildings with a height of four storeys are under construction on the review site. Five storey buildings have been approved on the adjoining sites for student accommodation. A new ‘neighbourhood character’ is emerging in Dudley Street and Gibson Street. It will be very
different to the character it had when policies of minimal change were applied.
The emerging character is more aligned with the Phoenix Precinct and comprises larger buildings rather than the traditional lower density residential streets typically found throughout Caulfield and Carnegie. Whilst it is physically separated by the recreation reserve from the Phoenix Precinct, it is functionally integrated with that precinct. I concur with Member David when he commented ‘the horse has bolted’ and the minimal change area policy is no longer relevant to guide planning discretion in this precinct.
- I think the proposed modest changes to the built form would comply with the strategic directions of the State and the local planning policy frameworks that encourage provision of a more diverse housing stock, greater housing choice and intensification in and close to activity centres. I think in situations such as this where circumstances have made the local policy incongruous and outdated, weight must be given to the State planning policy framework and the prevailing context that applies to the site. The proposal needs to be assessed on its particular design merits. There is little point in continuing to apply a policy that is no longer relevant. I think this proposal would provide net community benefits by enabling several hundred people to reside close to the extensive infrastructure invested in the Phoenix Precinct, and it would support an important education institution.
- To reject this proposal because a local policy says the land is within a minimal change area when adjoining sites are to be developed for five storey buildings makes planning policy and the exercise of discretion appear non responsive and unthinking.”
November 1, 2011 at 8:14 PM
About time. This is a big win for people who own land around train stations, such as Caulfield…pity about the residents but stuff em!
November 1, 2011 at 8:41 PM
The entire Phoenix Precinct Project has been a disaster from go to woe. Glen Eira has actively encouraged others to do the work that it should be doing – that is planning properly for an entire area and not the piecemeal antiquated excuse for a planning policy that residents are lumbered with. Minimal change means nothing – not only in Caulfield East but everywhere. Akehurst and Newton’s vision is an abomination and most councillors are too stupid to realise what they’re doing.
November 1, 2011 at 9:03 PM
This decision should send shockwaves through Glen Eira and especially through Councillors if they hope to get reelected. All are headed for a NSW Labor disaster if we only had opinion polls. This site is the closest thing to it and I can see the end to a few political careers particularly pro developers Councillors Pilling, Tang, Lipshutz, Esakoff and Hyams.
November 1, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Everything goes back to the lack of structure plans and not even attempting to get permanent height controls. Newton has rolled over on all planning issues allowing developers to get away with blue murder. The more people that get stuffed into little boxes the more revenue comes in and to hell with environment and amenity and people’s welfare. The sooner we all wake up to his plans and see the carnage they cause the sooner this council will be removed.
November 2, 2011 at 5:21 PM
TheAustralian
Running amok is states’ main plan
From: TheAustralian
October 08, 2011
VICTORIA’s Planning Minister has got himself in a pickle over his attempt to overrule a local council and push through an unpopular rezoning on Phillip Island.
Alternatively, you can copy and paste this link below into your browser:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/running-amok-is-states-main-plan/story-e6frg9if-1226160287009