Agenda items for Tuesday night feature another 2 Planning Scheme Amendments. We will concentrate on the Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas.
Generally when council introduces an amendment the argument is that it is necessary to fix up zoning issues, or that many of the clauses/phrases/wording in the existing planning scheme is repetitious, not clearly expressed, the legislation has changed, etc. etc. Our analysis of the proposed Non-Residential Uses reveals an entirely different picture. Yes, some changes are due to legislation but many represent nothing more than a watering down of previous conditions and thereby providing far more opportunity for developers to set up in residential areas. We have no problem with the position that amenities such as doctor surgeries, vets, etc. should be located where people live. What we do object to is the chipping away at conditions that help safeguard the existing amenity of residents.
Below we feature a table which presents side by side the current clauses and phrases from the existing Planning Scheme and what is proposed. Many of the changes are indeed subtle – just a word here and there – but the ramifications of these changes are immense. Please note that we have not covered everything – just the main concerns such as location, car parking, and protection of trees.
|
EXISTING POLICY |
PROPOSED CHANGES |
| To encourage the development and location of new non-residential uses in areas which are compatible with the residential nature of the area and comply with orderly and proper planning principles.
Proposed development sites abut a main or secondary road and have vehicular access from a service road or side. Other locations may only be considered where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be compromised.
The proposal be located within easy walking distance of public transport.
Existing dwelling stock be retained in preference to purpose built facilities.
Sufficient car parking be provided on-site for all users.
he standard car parking requirement will only be reduced where the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the area is supported with suitable levels of public car parking and public transport.
The retention of any significant trees or landscape features be a high priority in the design.
Where car parking is in the front setback, a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage be provided.
Where car parking areas abut residential dwellings, an adequate landscape buffer (suggested width of 1.5m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.
Stormwater runoff directed into garden areas to reduce watering and demand on drainage infrastructure. |
To encourage the development or extension of non-residential uses, in suitable locations which comply with orderly and proper planning principles.
Encourage the location of non-residential uses in “preferred locations” including main or secondary roads and on corner sites with vehicular access from a service or side road. Consider other locations where it can be demonstrated that residential amenity will not be unreasonably compromised.
DISAPPEARED and replaced with: Discourage the location of non-residential uses on local streets within Minimal Change Areas (as defined in Clause 22.08)
Retain existing dwelling stock, where practical, and any associated extensions/alterations maintain or enhance its residential character.
To ensure that adequate provision is made for on-site vehicle parking, bicycle parking and (where necessary) drop off/pick up areas for all non-residential uses/s in a safe manner. Car parking facilities be provided to the side or rear or basement of the premises, unless the use is in a preferred location abutting main or secondary roads (as defined in Clause 21.12) or in a Housing Diversity Area (as defined in Clause 22.07)
Reduced on-site car parking must be supported by a Traffic and Parking Report
Retain any high priority significant trees or landscape features within the design where possible.
Ensure that where car parking is proposed in the front setback (in limited circumstances where the use is in a preferred location), a generous landscape buffer between the car park and the street frontage must be provided.
Where car parking areas abut residential dwelling, an adequate landscape buffer (minimum width of 1.0m) be provided and be heavily planted with large shrubs and trees.
DISAPPEARED |
Glen Eira Debates 
June 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM
GlenEira, the table is a real eye-opener. Language such as “unreasonably”, “where possible”, “where practical” work in broadening the possibility that next door to anyone there will appear a nursing home, another synagogue/church and so on.
I’m pretty certain that very few, if any, of the councillors would bother to go back to the planning scheme and compare the old with the new as this post has done. Without such comparisons the suggested changes sound fair and reasonable, They aren’t though. It’s also clear that Housing Diversity Areas are once again being sacrificed in opposition to Minimal Change Areas.
I worry that when such reports are presented at council meetings they are intended to beguile rather than revealing the true extent of changes and explaining the necessity or advantage to be gained by such changes. Council does not seem to have any problem with publishing documents that contain track changes for other documents. I would think that such a practise is essential when dealing with major policy issues such as planning scheme amendments. Then again, everyone could see what’s happening and that’s probably a definite no-no.
June 30, 2012 at 11:56 AM
There’s a huge difference between saying protect “any significant trees” and the new version of “high priority significant trees”. The rub is who decides what’s “high priority”? The bottom line in anything these people touch is the same – to make sure that they can cram as many new developments as possible into already overcrammed areas and to hell with residents, parking, open space and all the other social and environmental amenities.
I think it’s nearly two years and we’re still waiting for a tree register that won’t even look at private land and will only have about 200 trees listed. This is a joke so’s the amendment.
June 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM
Every single policy and amendment change is pouring more and more crap onto housing diversity. Eleven stories, canyons along tramlines and it all doesn’t matter. Instead of “reviewing” this lousy policy this council is selling out nearly half of the population to developers.
June 30, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Pretty amazing analysis – I agree that these policy changes are just further favouring developers rather than the residents.
When oh when will this Council listen to the residents – traffic, parking, open space issues need to be addressed and packing more people into already congested areas is not addressing the issues.
June 30, 2012 at 2:36 PM
Hi if you want to keep an eye on developments at the MRC check out sit nearmap.com. It is better than Google maps. it allows you look at changes that have been made in preceding months. think this software is probably used by councils to look at residents doing inappropriate development
June 30, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Overhead an ex Mayor and gang member at the local Gardenvale coffee shop mention that an extension will be granted on the centre of the racecourse improvements until AFTER the Council election. This is disappointing for all Glen Eira residents. The MRC should focus more on the centre improvements than on the C60 development and there is no reason why it should take longer than one or two months. Look at what can be achieved on the Block.
July 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM
well done to MRC after the election they can get more form Glen Eira saying they will offer to build a park in the middle of the racecourse!. Using NearMap you can see the new inner white fence at the racecourse was built between March and April this year
July 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Nearmap uses an air plane to take up to date photos. Google Earth uses satellite photos. Most are quite old. Look at all the dead grass in our parks. I think they fly at about 10,000 feet. Yes the Councils do use Nearmap. Not sure about Glen Eira as they run a tight budget and nearmap is not free as is Google Earth.