We raise an issue that has important ethical implications about the interdependence of developers and council planners. Two questions stand out:
- How ‘impartial’ should a council planning officer be when he/she drafts the report to council?
- To what extent should officers’ reports to council be an almost verbatim transcript of the developer’s proposal or, if not verbatim, then a very close paraphrasing of the application?
- To what extent do officers rely completely on developers’ reports and to what extent to they do their own homework and investigations?
We focus here on two documents related to the proposed C80 amendment which seeks to rezone parts of Glen Huntly Rd in order to create a 5 storey, 62 unit dwelling with car parking waiver. Part of this site also featured in this week’s Leader, since there is another application in to create a recycling facility on a section of this proposed rezoned land. (See our previous post: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/pilling-foot-in-mouth-disease/)
We’ve located the Urbis ‘Planning Permit Report’ (104 pages) and compared this with the five and a half page officer report presented to councillors. It’s important to note that of this five and a half pages, more than two are taken up with the usual preliminaries and protocols – ie the processes involved in seeking amendments, and an opening page which outlines the proposal, plus the aerial view of the site. That leaves roughly 3 pages upon which councillors have to make their decision. Hardly adequate we believe! And especially inadequate when justification for recommending the proposal rests on such nebulous language as ‘appropriate’, “consistent”, “adequately cater”, etc. This is the part that is important. The rest of the item consists of architect drawings and a ten page draft Permit Application. We doubt that any councillor actually read this ‘permit’!
We’ve extracted some paragraphs from the Urbis report and compared this with the council planner’s effort. The selective plagiarism should be obvious to everyone and makes us seriously question not only the ethics of this, but also whether council planners by quoting, or paraphrasing so liberally can be seen as impartial adjudicators?
|
THE URBIS REPORT |
COUNCIL OFFICER’S REPORT |
| “The proposed amendment provides opportunities for new economic growth and additional housing supply within the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. The existing N3Z applied to the subject land is designed to encourage the development of industries and associated uses which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises within the subject land. The rezoning of the land to B2Z allows for a different mix of possible land use outcomes that would be consistent with the Glen Huntly Activity Centre.” | The existing Industrial 3 Zone (IN3Z) applied to 1232-1258 Glen Huntly Road, supports industries and associated uses, which are becoming increasingly redundant within this area. This is evidenced by the number of vacant premises and nonindustrial uses operating with the area. Also the industrial zoning currently prohibits any residential use/development on the land (other than a caretaker’s dwelling).
Therefore the rezoning has the potential to create opportunities for economic growth and additional housing supply consistent with the Glen Huntly Neighbourhood Centre.
|
| “The majority of the subject land is currently zoned for industrial use. A Site Assessment Report, prepared by Douglas Partners has indicated that a number of the sites have had past and current land uses that are considered to be of medium to high potential for contamination, including 122 Grange Road, Carnegie. Therefore the amendment seeks to implement an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land to ensure that it is suitable for any future sensitive uses. | A chronological land use history of all the sites has been undertaken to identify whether the land is potentially contaminated. Based on these findings it is considered that there is medium to high potential for contamination. Therefore the application of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to all of the land is required, to ensure that the land is suitable for any sensitive use, such as residential, in the future.
|
| “The Framework Plan identifies the land as being located within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC). It is important to note, that the activity centre designation of the Glen Huntly is different from (sic) State Government’s perspective under Melbourne 2030. The B2Z encourages a range of office and associated commercial uses, which complement the core retail uses of the centre and achieve the desired strategic outcomes for an activity centre of this level.” | The rezoning of 122 Grange Road from Residential 1 to Business 2 is considered appropriate and will reflect the long term commercial use that has operated on the land since the 1950s. It will also facilitate future mixed use redevelopment opportunity of this prominent corner location.
It is important to note that there currently is a discrepancy between State and Local Planning Policy in regards to the identification of the Glen Huntly Activity Centre. State Planning Policy identifies Glen Huntly as a Major Activity Centre (MAC). Council’s Local Planning Policy identifies this area as a Neighbourhood Centre.
|
Glen Eira Debates 
August 2, 2012 at 11:31 PM
What worries me about all this is how often it’s happened before. So few of council’s amendments come from them. They practically all come from developers. Not a good look when this sort of thing goes on. Everything is left to developers – the application and the homework. Officers don’t need to do much except tick a few boxes and end of story. I would have thought that it should be council who pushes for amendments. That would show me that they have some long term planning and vision. This way it’s leaving everything to the developer but in a disorganised and haphazard way. That’s not planning.
August 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM
You have to be joking. You give the impression that on the basis of a few similar words, in a vast report, that somehow the Officers Report is compomised and they perhaps fail to adequately report.By all means question Council and expose where they are wrong but please don’t become another Tony Abbott.
August 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Take a gander at C60 and then tell us that everything is 100%
August 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Sure the Beck family can assist Councillors Hyams, Esakoff, Lipshutz and Pilling in their re-election campaigns now that they are set to win the Caulfield racecourse development project. Reminds me on Bectons two “questionable” projects in 333 Collins Street and Jolimont in the earlt 90s. Both political sweetheart deals that brought down the Kirner Labour Government – but that another story.
August 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Doubt the Councillors will get anything but not so sure of the state pollies. David Southwick did change his tune on the development very quick.
August 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM
I am so pleased that these developments application and rezoning requesthas been highlighted on glen eira debates website. There are many anomalies to these applications and require detailed examination and we appreciate your help ! I noted when viewing the plans for c80 and the planning permits for 1232 to 1258 Glen Huntly road Carnegie that the Council has already issued a draft permit before residents have seen the plans and had time to respond Although the council has had the applicants request since January this year.
August 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM
I am still scratching my head trying to work how the C80 amendment (which through rezoning will prevent the recycling plant being built there) and the application for the recycling plant can be chugging along for months and no one in Council planning department recongised that the two were mutually exclusive.
I am also extremely shocked to learn that the re-zoning is because a developer requested. It was not a Council Planning Department initiative – they have not surveyed the municipality to determine whether the zoning is appropriate (even they have admitted in one recent amendment that some blocks of land are half in one zone and half in another – a ridiculous situation which can only occur if their work is sloppy). They are just sitting at Town Hall waiting for some developer to commission a glossy report from a large urban planning firm.
This planning department has no initiative, no analytical ability, no regard for residents and obvioulsy from this instance no co-ordinated approach to processing either permits or amendments. They are costing ratepayers heaps in terms of salaries and by continually subsidising the developer with our lost residential amenity.
Planning should be a real hot topic at the coming elections – when judging the Councillor’s don’t listen to the rhetoric this time around (it will be the same as last time) instead just take a look around you, assess what has gone on in the past 4 years and ask yourself if you want the destruction of neighbourhood character, totally inadequate traffic and parking management to continue while your concerns and opinions are ignored.
.
August 4, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Reckon the right hand has got no idea what the left hand is doing in this planning department. Two different planners involved. If they do happen to know then what about the applicants and if they know what kind of deals are being made?
August 5, 2012 at 9:35 AM
C60 was proposed, written and paid for by the MRC. That is the way it can work. The proposal is put up then the public are invited to have input. Asking residents if they like it or not does not happen. Political pressure on Councillors is the only way that people like you can have an influence. Rezoning does not trake into account property values. Sometime Councils put up proposals sometimes landowner also make proposals.
August 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM
The officers report includes quotes from a developer commissioned report which, since there is no acknowledgement of the source of the comments, makes it appear like these are the officers comments based on their own assessment of the application and the planning scheme.
This makes one wonder whether the officer has crossed the line and rather than objectively assessing the application (which they are required to do) they have become an agent of the developer.
August 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Now, now, now, an “agent for the developer”. Surely not. No reasonable person would ever think that Newton and the gang were agents for the MRC, now would they? They’ve got the community at heart after all and wouldn’t do anything that goes against our welfare,
August 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Its not a good look when council officers start quoting chunks of a developer’s own documentation in support of their profit-making scheme. That suggests the developer’s views have been accepted uncritically. Arguments about a use being increasingly redundant are undermined when there are applications outstanding for that use, and the fewer places there are available where recycling is permitted, the less redundant they will be. If anything I expect recycling to be more important now than ever, as we slowly learn to be less wasteful. I still doubt the proposed recycling use is compatible with its location next door to residential dwellings, assuming it retains its IN3Z zone, which itself is unlikely. Council’s view is that the entirety of its Housing Diversity Areas should be carpeted with 1- and 2-bedroom apartments. I disagree with them on so many fronts, but there are no signs of them changing their policies to improve the long-term outcomes.