Tuesday night’s ‘discussion’ on the VCAT results for the Rosstown Rd application were full of the usual handwringing by several councillors – Esakoff, Hyams and especially Magee. In the end they all continue to miss the point and to parade themselves as concerned, indignant, and outraged residents lambasting VCAT for all of council’s planning ills. Nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth. In essence, what the member concluded in the Rosstown Rd judgement was clear and unavoidable – if Council can’t apply their own policy, then VCAT would do it for them! And what is this policy? Major activity centres should have up to 10 storey developments according to the ground rules laid down by council and supported year after year by councillors!!!
We’ve said this time and time again. Glen Eira Council’s Planning Scheme is manna from heaven for developers. Without structure plans, without interim or permanent height limits, without explicit parking precinct plans, activity centres and their residents have been sacrificed on the altar of greed. The arguments that VCAT is totally to blame remains a nonsense. Magee’s claim ‘I hate VCAT’ is even more insulting in light of his and other councillors’ total inaction. We even are left to wonder if:
- Councillors have ever read the planning scheme?
- Do they really understand its full implications?
- How many of them go back and read the actual VCAT decisions?
- How do they explain the fact that this council has NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED to gain formal height limit restrictions?
Tang now talks of ‘ideology’. Rubbish we say! Ideology which is quite prepared to inflict such pain on residents has no place in any planning scheme. Councillors who continually ignore the root cause of a major problem have no right to claim to represent residents. And councillors who continually trot out the bogey-man excuse of VCAT have no real understanding of what is going on.
We urge all readers to carefully consider what the member actually stated. Below are extracts from his judgement and from other judgements that he quotes. Newton and Akehurst have set the agenda via their planning scheme. This is the future, unless the ‘revolution’ continues!
“The Council conceded that the site is located within the Carnegie Urban Village, identified as a Major Activity Centre, and therefore in a higher order activity centre where Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement encourages significant urban consolidation.
Carnegie is identified as a Major Activity Centre and therefore is identified as an appropriate location to achieve more intense forms of urban consolidation than would be expected in the residential hinterland, and in lower order activity centres.
the central area of these type of urban villages can be expected to attract redevelopment proposals involving at least 5-10 levels of proposed built form, or even possibly more (recognising however that each application must be assessed on its own merits)
It is clear therefore, from the analysis of policy, that more intense building forms are anticipated within these urban villages, increasing in intensity as one draws closer to the core of these centres.
The review site is therefore firmly entrenched near the core of the urban village. This has implications due to the local policy as to the intensity of development that is encouraged on the review site.
I therefore find that both state and local policy encourages an intense form of residential development to be achieved on the review site, which would represent a significant degree of change from the traditional housing stock. Policy does not anticipate that the form and scale of development will respect the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood, as would be expected in a location outside of the activity centre. Instead, in this location developments that are more intense than the surrounding character are firmly encouraged.
Both the Council and Mr Dyer demonstrated that the existing approvals for development within the Carnegie Urban Village currently peak at four storeys. However I do not draw the conclusion urged upon me from that analysis, that four storeys should be, or is likely to be, the ultimate height for future development in this activity centre. More to the point, if indeed this Major Activity Centre were limited to four storeys of development in the future, it would represent a significant under-realisation of the expectations of this centre from both State and Local policy. If Carnegie were to develop to a maximum of four storey forms, it would amount to a failure of policy to achieve the outcomes that it so clearly seeks to achieve.
I therefore do not accept the submissions made that four storeys is an appropriate limit for development generally in the Carnegie Urban Village.
In my view it would be absurd to require development on the review site to transition to the existing single storey housing stock, when that housing stock is encouraged by policy to be replaced by more intense building forms.
Having regard to the whole of policy that is before me, it is therefore entirely clear that a five storey development would be entirely consistent with the strategic objectives for this locale. Indeed, from my analysis I conclude that policy supports a building greater than 5 storeys in height in this location, but a five storey development is what is before me, and it is clear that has policy support.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To make matters worse, below is a photograph (taken earlier this week) of ‘traffic management’ in Rosstown Rd!
Glen Eira Debates 
July 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM
I agree with you that the issue is the crappy Glen Eira Planning Scheme and I, for one, am getting really tired of VCAT being blamed instead of Council and the Administration.
Sure VCAT has some issues with consistency of decisions, that is not in dispute, however, that there are so many VCAT decisions overturning Glen Eira Council’s decisions is due to a deficient planning scheme. Time and time again, VCAT reasoning (for over ruling Council) states that the planning scheme allows it. How much clearer can you be than the above statement “that Ï conclude that policy supports a buillding greater than 5 storey’s in height in this location”.
A simple analysis of recent VCAT decisions (the actual decisions, not Council’s summarised version presented in the Council Meeting Minutes) shows that the planning scheme allows the proposed development and that Council’s rejection or modifying conditions are contrary to the planning scheme.
It is time all Councillors and the Administration stopped blaming VCAT and actually listened to the load and clear message that VCAT is sending – if the planning scheme allows it then so will VCAT.
July 6, 2012 at 2:02 PM
About a week ago there was a post that outlined the things that council had promised to do with the planning scheme review and which hadn’t been done yet. I went back and had a look at the list. The most common words used were “review” and “consider”. Translated this tells me that nothing will be done. No implementation of change is on the horizon under Newton and his toady councillors. They all have to go if Glen Eira is going to be a place where people still want to live.
July 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM
As a relatively new glen Eira resident who has had a lot of experience with planning, I am continually astounded by Councillors refusing or tinkering with planning permit applications – this overlooks a basic concept in the planning permit approval process.
That concept is that when a planning permit application is received, it is assigned to a planning officer. The planning officer’s job is to compare the application to the planning scheme
. if it fits the officer will further process the application
. if it doesn’t fit the officer can reject the application or can work with the developer to modify the development’s design to ensure that it fits within the planning scheme (sometimes this modifying process can occur before the permit is actually lodged).
The planning permit will only be advertised if the planning officer (who works within the planning scheme on a daily basis and presumably knows the planning scheme inside out) is satisfied that the proposal fits within the planning scheme. Therefore, it follows, that any planning permit that reaches the residents (via the advertising) complies with the planning scheme.
Generally, the no. of objections received determines the next stage in planning permit processing. Only those permits that are deemed to be highly contentous make it to an Ordinary Council Meeting. Any time Councillors refuse or tinker with a permit presented to them they are opening the door for VCAT to legitimately overturn their decision – if the planning officers believe the presented application fits within the scheme you can bet VCAT will too.
Continually blaming VCAT is absurd and is a failure to address the basic underlying issue of a deficient planning scheme.
July 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM
All this goes back to at least ten years ago when the parameters were first set. The problem then was that most residents didn’t really grasp what was happening. There was a distinct lack of what I’d say is honest information given out, plus the apathy of many residents. Even today I doubt that too many people would even know whether they live in a housing diversity area or a minimal change area and what this means for their lifestyles and their areas. It’s only when an application goes in right next door to them that they wake up and realise the implications.
The discussion paper on the recent planning scheme review continued the deception and cover ups. It was shocking in its failure to hit on the important issues and to make the situation 100% clear to people. Of course nothing has happened as a result.
But I would say that it’s taken these ten years for people to finally start seeing the physical consequences of the planning scheme. They are impossible to ignore when we’re going to have 10 soterys in Glen Huntly Rd and another 11 storeys in Carnegie. The planners have known this all the time. They’ve shut up and totally mislead residents. Councillors have probably been fed bullshit and swallowed it completely. Their stupidity can’t be excused or forgiven.
July 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM
They have blatantly and purposely misled residents right through the whole process. The administrators of this council always had their vision for our city in their minds and they have dishonestly and with total disregard for the community and put in place a planning scheme that gives developers an open slather invitation to come here and take what they want. We as residents have no say, our views are always totally ignored and we have the worst non-prescriptive, non-protective planning scheme. We must make sure that none of the appalling councilors who have refused to listen and who have refused to take on the administrators of this planning nightmare are re-elected. We must get new councilors who are willing to sack the administrators and get some people at the top who care, who listen, who will do something to support people who live here and not just hand the place over to money hungry developers who don’t care about anyone or anything but lining their own pockets. Frankly I’m sick of Glen Eira Council as I see all around me the impact of their neglect of duty.
July 6, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Very depressing reading. If a planning scheme can be interpreted to mean that 10 or even 20 storeys is okay in residential areas then there’s something very very wrong with the planning scheme itself. Sure that vcat only has the obligation to consider council policies. My argument is that if the policies were stronger then it would make it damn harder for vcat to over-ride them.
The post also asks a really good question – why haven’t these people ever tired to get height limits and why when the state government is handing out money and expert help to councils to get structure plans off the ground why this mob don’t take advantage of the offer. It may cost a lost to set up a proper structure plan but personally I’d rather they spent the money on things like this than on ripping up perfectly good footpaths to put down their stupid little bricks when they’re not needed or to put artifical grass in roundabouts. The priorities are all wrong and nothing’s been done to turn them around.
July 6, 2012 at 5:52 PM
I was one of the objectors concerning the Rosstown Rd proposal. Until today when GlenEiraDebates posted this blog entry, I was unaware that a decision had been made. So I rang VCAT to find out why, and they confirmed that they hadn’t sent it to my email like I had requested. Another proposal was being heard today, this time at the other end of Kokarrib Rd. I asked VCAT if it was normal for the expert witness reports to be sent out with less than 10 business days’ notice (there’s a Practice Note covering this). According to them its not normal.
I don’t like our Planning Scheme, and yes I think Council could and should do much better, but don’t underestimate how big a problem VCAT really is. As Member Deidun makes clear, he has replaced the suite of policies contained in the Planning Scheme along with its reference and incorporated documents, with his own personal view of the world. Its one in which residents are not entitled to have their amenity protected, where even some solar access is a privilege, where the size of buildings overrides all other considerations, and where anything in the Planning Scheme that might constrain development is to be ignored.
I tried to get out of DPCD a document or a map that showed the boundaries of Carnegie Activity Centre, but failed because such a document doesn’t exist. When Melbourne 2030 lists activity centres, they’re just names of suburbs. Member Deidun took it upon himself to equate a Council policy to be the same thing as a State Government policy, although clearly they’re not. They come from different institutions with very different budgets, resources, responsibilities, and representatives.
Despite his claim, I did attempt to raise an issue with the retail element of the proposal, since it didn’t comply with Council policy and was encroaching upon traditional single-storey dwellings in a residential area. He stopped me to say I wasn’t allowed to raise it, which was bullshit since by law he was obliged to take account of it in a review. Now he has the cheek to say the matter wasn’t raised. He couldn’t even get the number of storeys right when referring to a rather ugly building in Woorayl St sandwiched between two single-storey dwellings. But he’s right in one thing: provided you don’t care about amenity and the consequences, you can pack a lot of people into a small area.
July 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Dear Richard,
Whilst we wholeheartedly sympathise with the local residents in this area and the limitations of VCAT you describe, the end result is still the same – the failings of council’s planning scheme to adequately describe and pinpoint precisely the requirements.
In another judgement on Belsize Ave, (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/584.html) the same member states:
“The Council and a number of residents submissions also relied in part on the policy statement for this precinct of the Carnegie urban village found at Clause 22.05 which states:
The re-development of 314 Neerim Road for medium density dwellings be encouraged.
They submitted that the presence of this policy statement meant that a less dense outcome must be sought for the remainder of Precinct 8 to give effect to the particular policy statement that applies to the site at 314 Neerim Road.
Ms Bruce submitted that it was never the intention of the urban village policies now adopted into the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, for a development of this nature to be contemplated on the review site. Those submissions were made in particular in the context of Ms Bruce’s involvement in various community consultation processes with the Council in the past.
In respect of this last submission, I need to apply the Planning Scheme as I find it. I cannot seek to interpret policies and strategies in a way that is not its ordinary meaning, based on interpretations given at previous consultation meetings or other discussions with Council officers. My role, as the Tribunal Member, is to interpret the Scheme that has been adopted, and analyse what it seeks to encourage in relation to this dispute.”
Where does all this leave us? What does it say about the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of local policy? We would argue that with clearer, permanent controls (rather than ‘guidance’) the scope for various ‘interpretations’ would be greatly limited. This, we argue has got nothing to do with VCAT AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH COUNCIL’s willingness to be proactive and to change their planning scheme accordingly. Instead of patting themselves on the back regarding the number of objections lodged, residents would be far happier with a comprehensive analysis of each VCAT decision that went against them and/or council and subsequently seek every means available to correct these potential ‘loop holes’. Instead of a fundamental overhaul, Glen Eira Council is content to tinker with the edges to the detriment of countless residents.
July 6, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Absolutely Council should be held accountable for their failures to make clear in their Planning Scheme the outcomes they want&mdashjust as I’m making it clear that I don’t believe in discriminating against anybody on the basis of their postcode. This latest decision though undermines the entire planning process. It is saying that Council’s Planning Scheme is irrelevant. However the Scheme is modified, if it carries no weight at VCAT, its a waste of time. It should be changed if only to reflect what a reasonable person thinks is acceptable, but the extremely nasty politics of planning will remain. I have never, ever, been represented by somebody I have voted for, and the situation doesn’t look like changing. Ultimately there’s only one way of making decision-makers accountable and that’s for them to bear the costs of the consequences of their decisions.
July 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM
I’ve tried to locate maps that would tell me where all the housing diversity areas are. This has been a particularly fruitless hunt. What maps exist are difficult to read and interpret. The proposed c87 is now set to add more to these areas by removing their status from minimal change. The entire methodology is flawed and discriminatory. Why some activity centres should go back 3 or 4 streets and others just 1 is never explained. Even more ridiculous are decisions that appear to assign one side of a street to either significan character areas and the opposite side is turned into housing diversity as in the c87. The impression created is that planning in Glen Eira is done on a whim and a prayer. The prayer is that residents will be so confused that no-one, or a minimum of people will object so that the amendments can be rushed through. Residents need to know exactly why their neighbourhoods are treated in the manner they are and the justification for such designations. Imposing something from on high when people don’t understand what it will mean is a total abuse of power.