Council resolutions and policy in Glen Eira are very flexible instruments depending on the individual issues they cover, and the perceived ‘sensitivity’ of these issues. Planning undoubtedly comes under the umbrella of ‘sensitive’. Hence, formal council resolutions, such as items from the Community/Council plan are repeatedly ignored, forgotten and distorted. The Community plan, repeated in the 2011/12 Annual Report under Strategic Planning, stated:
“Strategy: Ensure town planning controls and policies are as clear, concise, relevant and helpful as possible in deciding planning applications in a logical, repeatable and transparent manner.
Action: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas.
Measure: Report the numbers of dwellings approved for minimal change areas and housing diversity areas quarterly.”
Unless we are entirely deficient in our English Language Skills, ‘numbers’ does not mean PERCENTAGES, and ‘quarterly’ refers to the 4 times a year SERVICES REPORT. The last council meeting had the Services report (ending September 2012) as one of the items. Included in this report was the following:
“84% of dwellings approved for first quarter are in Housing Diversity Areas.”
That’s it! No numbers, no mention of Minimal Change statistics, and no real overview of what is happening in the municipality in terms of the success of failure of the 80/20 policy. We have to go to the Annual Report to glean some information on this vital question.
The Annual Report includes in very small font this statement for dwelling approvals– “Total for 2011–12 minimal change 345, housing diversity 830”. This means that the so called 80/20 division of Glen Eira is rapidly falling to bits since we do not believe that the majority of approvals in these areas would be the simple replacement of one dwelling for another single dwelling. Further, 345 approvals makes the ‘division’ of Glen Eira more like 60/40 instead of the touted 80/20. Amendment C25 claimed to “re-direct multi-unit housing into appropriate locations” and “within the minimal change areas, existing low intensity, low-rise character will be protected and enhanced.” It goes on to claim “For the majority of the City, single houses, extensions to existing houses and two dwelling developments are envisaged as the predominant types of dwellings. By limiting development to this level, existing neighbourhood character can be protected, while still promoting a range of housing through the City.” Is this really happening? How many developments in Minimal Change Areas are more than 2 units per block? How many protect ‘neighbourhood character’ given that there is no real mandatory Urban Design Framework in Glen Eira?
Again, we have to go back to the crucial questions of:
- Where is the information that will reveal the true ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these objectives?
- What’s the point of having Council Resolutions when these aren’t adhered to?
- Why aren’t councillors insisting that their Resolutions are carried out to the letter?
- Why are such vital statistics allowed to be buried, instead of highlighted?
- How much longer will ‘transparency’ be merely a word, rather than the fundamental tenet underpinning all operations in Glen Eira?
Glen Eira Debates 
November 23, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Business as usual I’d say. Perhaps you can’t teach old dogs new tricks but you can teach old tricks to new dogs without a single whimper from any of the new councillors. As long as Newton and Burke are there this council is doomed.
November 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM
Interesting that the Caulfield Racecourse Precinct Special Committee has now been abolished by order of Newton. I suppose C60 has been passed and it doen’t matter if the racecourse agreement signed by Hyams, Esakoff, Pilling and Lipshutz has been ignored by the Melbourne Racing Club. Southwick as well has been noticably absent.
November 23, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Correction – it has not been “abolished” Ben. See the agenda items for next Tuesday night’s council meeting. We will comment on this and other items in the next few days.
November 24, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Over recent years I’ve been noticing the extraordinary number of new developments occurring in the so called minimal change areas, not to mention the overdevelopment that is occurring in those unfortunate areas designated housing diversity areas (increasing heights, number of dwellings and less parking).
Based on this empircal evidence (which no doubt Council will sh*tcan), I’d support your comments that 80/20 has been replaced with 60/40. Council statistics always present a picture that is contrary to the empirical evidence as Council invariably shows that most development is the housing diversity areas. However, the Council’s statistics, unlike statistics presented by accredited bodies, are never presented in a consistent manner (and no comment is ever made on deviations), lack definitions and calculation methodology and fail to comply with the stated performance measures. As such Council’s statistics have little or no credibility and this is another instance of Council failing to comply with open and transparent governance.
November 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM
The “80/20” rule was only ever a soundbite used by councillors and staff to diffuse criticism. What the actual set of conflicting local policies contained in GEPS calls for is a majority of new dwellings to be in its housing diversity areas. It is just possible that the ratio of the *areas* covered by the two sets of unfair policies are roughly in proportion 80:20. Curiously, housing diversity areas include its ghettos (the Urban Villages) yet they are excluded from Housing Diversity policy.
The MSS and other local policies are a mess though. Its all very circular. Urban villages themselves stem from a 1996 policy and were replaced by M2030. Activity Centre boundaries have never been defined, making it difficult for Cr Magee to claim a development lies within an Activity Centre. VCAT have stated that Major Activity Centres are defined by Council’s Urban Villages, thereby contradicting SPPF and related reference documents about what an Activity Centre is. Council has never used ACZ as a planning tool, or done the necessary strategic planning work required to use it. Everywhere there is a failure to provide housing diversity—not near fixed transport, and not near open space. Despite policy that calls for a focus on trees to soften the impact of built form in housing diversity areas, we continue to see a loss of habitat, and introduction of moonscaping or 100% site coverage with no open space nearby to compensate.
We’re now seeing further erosion of sound planning policy, whereby new high density multi-unit development are no longer required to prevent overlooking of neighbours secluded private open space, and solar access is not considered a valuable amenity to be protected (if you reside within Urban Villages). Not even employment is a priority, with four councillors supporting a proposal for 174 new dwellings that generates no additional jobs. The real tragedy is that so few people care.
November 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM
There seems to be a huge discrepancy between actual dwellings reported to be built and forecast. The forecast says that in the period of 2011/12 there would be 504 dwellings built. The actual reported here from the Annual Report is 1175. This means that the additional income going into the coffers of Town Hall is probably double that I have estimated. Yet, policies seem to be designed to spend less by Glen Eira Council on amenity improvements. The money is being spent. Where does it go? Follow the money. There has to be an explanation.
Agree with Reprobate about inconsistencies of the GEPS. On Activity Centres, in 2004 52 of ACs of different sizes have been identified. Essentially it was an exercise in providing a wide range of possibilities for development. Now we are waiting for New Zones from State Government to increase further development opportunities. All that increases income of the Council. Where is ALL the money going?