With practically every VCAT decision it is becoming clearer and clearer that this Council’s Planning Scheme is woefully inadequate in protecting residents from overdevelopment. The latest example features the decision on Etna St., Glen Huntly. Council approved this application for a four storey development (27 units) in November, 2011. Residents objected. The telling points of the VCAT member’s decision relates to the failure of Council to:
- Delineate exactly where Housing Diversity begins and ends
- The myth of ‘neighbourhood character’ being a ‘protection’ in Housing Diversity
We cite the relevant paragraphs below and also alert readers to the fact that not one word of the proposed Council Plan addresses any of these shortcomings. The full VCAT decision is found at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/420.html
“In the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), Glenhuntly is designated a Major Activity Centre. The strategies for Principal and Major Activity Centres include
Have the potential to grow and support intensive housing developments without conflicting with surrounding land-uses
There is no requirement here that the development of Major Activity Centres should have any regard to issues of neighbourhood character. This is in contrast to the SPPF’s strategies for Neighbourhood Activity Centres, which do include (my emphasis):
Encourage higher density housing in and around Neighbourhood Activity Centres that is designed to fit the context and enhances the character of the area while …
The site also meets the SPPF’s definition of a Strategic Redevelopment Site, being a site suitable for “for large residential development”.
The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not define the extent of the Glenhuntly activity centre as such. However, it does designate Glenhuntly as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, being third in the activity centre hierarchy below urban villages and the Phoenix Centre. The site is also situated in a Housing Diversity Area[, being an area which, amongst other objectives, is to promote increased housing diversity in terms of housing types, layouts and sizes whilst
Ensuring that density, mass and scale of residential development is appropriate to the location, role and neighbourhood character of the specific housing diversity area.
It is clear that Housing Diversity Areas are intended to accommodate increased housing densities, with the appropriate density around any centre being dependent on contextual factors. Contextual factors should properly include the status of each centre.
With respect to any conflict between the SPPF and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), s.7(4)(b) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 states
(4) If there appears to be an inconsistency between different provisions of a planning scheme—
(a) the scheme must, so far as practicable, be read so as to resolve the inconsistency; and
(b) subject to paragraph (a)
(i) the State standard provisions prevail over the local provisions; and …
Because of this, the centre must be treated as a Major Activity Centre wherein “intensive housing developments” should be encouraged. The only conflict that is to be avoided is that relating to “surrounding land-uses” (i.e. not neighbourhood character).
In order to read Council’s policies relating to neighbourhood character in a way that is consistent with s.7(4)(b) of the Act, much greater weight must be placed on increasing housing diversity and density around Glenhuntly Activity Centre than on maintaining the existing neighbourhood character. That is, any interpretation of the term “respectful of neighbourhood character” in relation to a Major Activity Centre, being a policy introduced in the LPPF and not overtly supported (though not excluded) by the SPPF, must be read down from the way it should be applied in a Neighbourhood Activity Centre as designated consistently with the SPPF.
I find that the SPPF should be read as supporting a substantial increase in housing densities, including increased building height, on a site such as this that is within or adjoining a Major Activity Centre (and although not a requirement, this finding is in my opinion consistent with Clause 22.07)”.
Glen Eira Debates 
May 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM
My reading of this decision is that people living within cooee of an activity centre are stuffed. Neighbourhood character means nothing.
May 8, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Aint it amazing – yet another VCAT decision that clearly outlines how absolutely pathetic the Glen Eira Planning Scheme is. To not even clearly define the boundaries of a housing diversity (i.e. high density) area, in this case the Glenhuntly Activity Centre, has got to a failure of Town Planning 101. I wonder how many more activity centres suffer the same lack of definition.
Also, consider the implications on medium density or transition zones (both placating terms Council bandies around which Council admits have never been defined) adn minmal change areas if the housing diversity areas are not defined. Evidence of the creep into minimal change areas abounds.
It’s time these Cr.’s faced the facts – the planning scheme is cr*p and needs a radical and rapid overhaul. Continually blaming VCAT for overturning Council decisions is a fallacy that Council has perpetuated – in the vast majority of cases all VCAT has to do is look to the badly worded and ambiguous planning scheme to substantiate it’s decisions to reverse Council.
May 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM
The evidence keeps mounting up but Council and its councillors keep pretending that it doesn’t exist. I can’t remember any councillor explaining to residents why Glen Eira is bereft of structure plans, real transition zones, or why they won’t even bother to try and achieve interim or preferably, permanent height controls. Working on the assumption that the Planning Scheme is perfect is the height of arrogance and deceit.
Here was the perfect opportunity to really listen to residents and to redress the numerous problems that exist in the scheme and within the planning department. Nothing has been done of course and the pretense will continue indefinitely albeit camouflaged with the usual spin.
May 8, 2012 at 1:45 PM
I notice the new apartments on Glenhuntly Road near manchester grove have washing on the balconies. Must be great for the shops in the area to make it look like slums not to mention the houses. Has anyone viewed the slums on the railway line in Neerim Road? Council should be fining body corporates so they enforce the guidelines
May 8, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Nothing wrong with using the solar clothes dryer. We do not have council by laws as they have in some councils in USA where it is unlawful to hang out washing at anytime. The Body corporate rules would be hard to enforce. Have to get used to it just as you will get used to the high rise flats at in the race track car park.
May 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM
The VCAT decision is fairly typical of how they do business. Government policy is inconsistent, so you can argue for any particular outcome just by choosing carefully which policy elements you emphasize. The Member, Michael Read in this case, reveals his biases through his decision.
There’s nothing in SPPF that specifies 4-storey buildings for certain areas. Nor does SPPF authorize VCAT to trash people’s amenity. If you go back to Melbourne 2030 [several Governments, Premiers, and Planning Ministers ago], it specifically said, “The character of established residential areas will be protected through Rescode, and increased densities will not be achieved at the expense of existing amenity”. Obviously the Government then, and ever since, has been lying. So has our Council.
As a reminder, the Objectives of Planning in Victoria include “to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land”. But there’s nothing fair about using different standards of protection of amenity depending on where you live. Council’s differentiated housing policies are only acceptable if they are moderated to respect the people who are already living in the targeted areas, and if they are accompanied by the necessary investment to compensate for the inevitable loss of amenity. On all these fronts, Council and VCAT are failing.
The discussion in the decision concerning Activity Centres is both amusing and infurating. Despite Minister Guy’s bald assertion on 7:30 [ABC, 27 April], activity centre boundaries are *not* defined. DPCD doesn’t know what they are. All the Government did, through DCPD, is provide a bunch of suburb names. They weren’t chosen with great care either, and the policy has been used to bludgeon some communities into accepting a doubling of road traffic with its consequent queues and traumatic accidents.
The Minutes of 2 Nov 2011 states that the motion to adopt the Officer’s Recommendation for a 4-storey building envelope re Etna St was moved by Cr Pilling and seconded by Cr Forge, but the decision was not unanimous.
May 8, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Sorry Reprobate – the decision to accept the officers’ recommendation for a permit WAS UNANIMOUS. Here’s what the minutes state:
Crs Pilling/Forge
That the recommendation in the report be adopted.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
Further, we have not as yet reported on the superb justifications given by Lipshutz on our last post on VCAT – ie. the removal of the moribund tree. Lipshutz’s version of this event was that the tree should be on the Council Register of Significant Trees – that’s if it ever comes to fruition. Of course there was no mention of the fact that the arborist’s report, which council’s arborist agreed with, stated that the tree was basically on its last legs – diseased, etc.
The point we are making in all of this, is NOT that VCAT is wonderful, or that they aren’t pro-development. We are simply alerting readers to 2 basic facts:
1. How reports provided by officers are not averse to ‘selective editing’ or even a little bending of the truth, and
2. that Council’s Planning Scheme has often been commented on by VCAT members as ‘inconsistent’ or having huge gaps that aren’t defined. Yet council’s so called ‘review’ of the Planning Scheme has not addressed any issue or clause. It’s full steam ahead with the Housing Diversity and Minimal Change and the continued tinkering with the non-essential. Needless to say the community’s views are repeatedly ignored.