It is quite clear that this administration and its lackey councillors have absolutely no intention of either listening to residents or changing the direction of its planning policy. Item after item for Tuesday night’s council meeting confirms this. It will be more of the same – no consultation, no up-to-date local analysis, and certainly no let up in over development. We come to this conclusion based on the following:
Akehurst’s ‘review’ of the proposed VicSmart legislative changes is overwhelmingly supportive and even self-congratulatory in that the current Housing Diversity versus Minimal Change Areas as practised in Glen Eira will easily be reconfigured into VicSmart. In other words – no change is necessary in Glen Eira – “It is assumed that there will be an expectation on behalf of the State Government that the new zones will be applied in as neutral way as possible having regard to our existing zones and policies. The strongest likelihood is that this transition from our one existing residential zone (Residential 1 Zone) and policies (Minimal Change/Housing Diversity) to three new residential zones which incorporate our policy intents will be able to occur via a Ministerial (fast track) amendment. If this can be achieved it will occur relatively smoothly and ultimately with an improved outcome”. Of course, what this ‘improved outcome’ will be is not clarified, much less justified and proven. The message however is inescapable – much, much more of the same.
Whereas other councils (Manningham, Boroodara, Kingston to name just a few) can hold information sessions and urge their residents to become involved and put in submissions, all Glen Eira can do is present a self serving report that barely questions the removal of third party rights and other major drawbacks. What we get are nonsense paragraphs such as – “Third party rights (the involvement of neighbours) are not changing. It must be acknowledged however that the flip side of greater land use opportunities for land owner applicants is less involvement by others.”
Next, there’s the C87 Amendment where residents were excluded from having any say prior to the drafting of the Amendment and hence their voices and protests were ruled out of order. Even when the Panel report recommends that Heritage reviews be undertaken PRIOR to removing several properties from Minimal Change Areas and placing them in Housing Diversity, the response is:
This recommendation is not supported. Whilst it is acknowledged that a heritage control in a Housing Diversity Area may be perceived as a mixed (stop and go) town planning message, a heritage control would take precedence over potential development opportunities. It is considered that the two planning controls (i.e. heritage and housing diversity) can co-exist. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate for this area along Balaclava Road to change to a Housing Diversity Area(as exhibited). This policy should not impact on the potential for this area to have heritage protection in the future.”
We should also note that the Panel’s urging for Heritage reviews and other Amendments are barely mentioned. No time lines are provided, no sense of urgency detected. In the end, residents shouldn’t hold their breaths. What they can be certain about is that unless most of these councillors are voted out, then this municipality will continue to bend over backwards to support (over) development anywhere. This is the legacy of Newton and his toadies.
September 3, 2012 at 8:36 AM
does anyone know what the law is relating to signs being placed on public parks. At Caulfield East Park on the corner of Dandenong and Sir John Monash Drive there is now a real estate type sign for a religous orgnaisation before that it was used for a school. There is also a sign hug up for soccer. We all know that MRC hangs up lots of signs on the fences as well. Is this legal ? Does the council police or receive money for this?
September 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM
I think there are limitations to size and number and for these you need a permit. The mrc would definitely need one if they’re plastering signs all over the place.
September 3, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Gleneira you’ve neglected to mention the sudden support for mandatory height controls coming from Akehurst’s report. This features as a big plus for the planned legislative changes with the proviso that schedules can be changed by councils. Given the tone of the whole thing I would suspect that this council would actually exceed the recommended heights.
It also makes me quite cynical when you consider that for years and years this council has never bothered to seek height controls. Now they are welcomed with open arms and become a selling point. My guess is that where every other council will adhere to the 4 storey limit Glen Eira will seek to raise this level and still insist that they have listened to the community and brought in height control. It will be the same outrage that occurred with the C60. Yes, we have height control – it just happens to be 20 storeys – and even this isn’t finished yet.