This is a long post on the Planning Zone Reforms, but we believe an exceedingly important one. We urge readers to carefully consider the contents and to compare this Stonnington effort (Council meeting 3rd December) to what is occurring in Glen Eira. A few things require highlighting:
- Glen Eira Council is yet to publish its FINAL submission to Government. All that is available on council’s website is the draft proposal tabled at council and not the final submission. This has never been made public!
- No update or progress report has emanated from council. There is also no mention of the ‘metropolitan strategy’.
- Stonnington held community forums and information evenings. No such events occurred in Glen Eira.
- Council writes of ‘smooth transitions’ to the new zones. Our interpretation of this is simply that Glen Eira will steam roll ahead with what currently exists. Information will be minimal and consultation outcomes eventually ignored as per usual.
- Please note the tone of the Stonnington report and their concerns. These are sure to be similar in Glen Eira.
- Bolded sections are our emphases.
‘PLANNING ZONE REFORMS
Manager: Stephen Lardner
Executive Manager: Karen Watson
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the planning zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning.
Background
The proposed zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning in July 2012 represent a significant change to the Victorian Planning System. The consultation period for the planning zones ran for 2 months from 11 July until 28 September 2012 (this was extended from the 21 September 2012). A discussion paper, fact sheets for each zone and an online form (all available on the DPCD website) were released for the public and Councils to utilise throughout the consultation period.
The Minister has indicated that the objectives of the proposed zone reforms include simplifying requirements and providing greater certainty, to allow a broader range of activities to be considered (in support of improved economic performance) and to improve the range of zones to better manage growth. However no explanatory report to justify or outline how the new zones will achieve these objectives and outcome was made available, nor has one been released since the close of consultation.
The reforms propose three new residential zones, a new commercial zone and a change to the mixed-use zone and an industrial zone relevant to Stonnington. The key features and issues of the proposed zoning reforms that will impact on Stonnington can be found in Attachment 1.
Officers assessed the changes in detail and sought clarification and justification where possible to enable an informed consideration of how the planning zone reforms will impact on the Municipality. In response to requests for further information by community groups and individuals, Council held a community information session on 30 August 2012. Peter Allen, Executive Director of Statutory Planning Systems Reforms, Department of Planning and Community Development and local Member for Prahran Clem Newton-Brown both presented on the reforms. The event was received well with approximately 60 residents and stakeholders in attendance.
On 10 September 2012, Council adopted the submission in response to the Planning Zone Reforms consultation as outlined in Attachment 2 to this report. Officer’s assessment of the implications of the new zones identified major concerns. The main issues identified are as follows:
- A lack of strategic justification, identification and understanding of the economic and social impacts of the reforms.
- The negative impact of Activity Centres from the proposed expansion and dispersal of commercial uses into adjoining residential areas.
- Reduced residential amenity from ‘as of right’ commercial uses in residential zones and the intended expansions of Activity Centres into residential zones.
- The reforms encourage high density housing in all Activity Centres, without context or control.
- There is no economic study, no housing strategy, no capacity assessment or targets to provide the context which justifies the reforms.
- A lack of detailed information on key issues including transitioning to the new zones, consultation, resourcing, strategic context, current planning applications and VCAT appeals.
Discussion
It was initially stipulated that after the Government’s consultation period concluded in September 2012, the reformed commercial and industrial zones would be automatically implemented and local planning scheme schedules would be adjusted to align with the changes required. In its submission, Council raised concerns about the timing and resources of converting the zones.
Councils were to be given 12 months from the finalisation of the zones, to consider and apply for a conversion of existing residential zones. There were no criteria available to assist with this conversion process during the consultation stage. It is anticipated that the transitional process for the residential zones will require a major Planning Scheme Amendment process which would take up significant Council resources. Following the State Planning Scheme Amendment process, this would be both costly and time consuming and would well exceed the 12 months allowed.
On 14 September 2012 the Minister for Planning announced an advisory committee with Geoff Underwood as Chair and Chris Canavan QC and Liz Johnstone of the Planning Institute of Australia will provide advice about the final form of the proposed zones and how they should be introduced (see Attachment 3 – Terms of Reference). They will recommend a set of criteria to help determine the appropriate application of the reformed residential zones
The Committee has been asked to submit its findings and recommendations in relation to:
- the reformed residential zones and their criteria in December 2012
- other zones in February 2013.
Submissions to the reforms will be available to view on the DPCD website in December 2012.
One of the key deficiencies with the reforms is that it has been released and potentially will be implemented before the development of the new Metropolitan Strategy. The zones are a strategy implementation tool and the strategy does not yet exist. On October 26 2012 the Minister for Planning launched ‘Melbourne, let’s talk about the future’, a discussion paper to inform the development of the new Metropolitan Strategy and to seek further public consultation into the development of the strategy. This is the subject of a separate report on this agenda.
The identification of Council’s new Neighbourhood Character Overlay areas and existing Heritage Overlays will assist in clarifying the most sensitive areas within residential zones in Stonnington and will facilitate the translation of appropriate areas to the new residential zones. The proposed new residential zones also provide an opportunity to transfer general neighbourhood character objectives for the City into the applicable new residential zone.
At this stage, there is no updated advice from DPCD on the transition process and the status of other initiatives such as new policies or the application of other controls.
Policy Implications
Objectives of Stonnington’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) will be challenged by the introduction of high density residential development in all Activity Centres including Neighbourhood Activity Centres. Many policies in the MSS will become redundant without triggers for a permit.
Maintaining the hierarchy of commercial development is a policy objective for the existing Metropolitan Strategy “Melbourne 2030” specifically;
“The viability of many existing activity centres is threatened by retail and commercial developments that are set up some distance from them, particularly stand-alone developments such as corporate offices, strings of super-stores along main roads, or clusters of highway convenience retail outlets. Often these have poor accessibility to public transport and rely on car-based transport.
In aiming to maintain a hierarchy of centres, activity centre policy has given clear direction for a number of larger activity centres but limited direction for mid-sized and neighbourhood centres.”
Financial and Resources Implications
An assessment of the financial implications to Council will be undertaken following the release of the conversion and strategic justification criteria. The process may take several years to implement largely at the cost of the Council and local community. It will also require a major commitment from community groups and individuals responding to the wide-spread impacts of these changes.
Legal Advice and Implications
Legal advice may be sought for the next stage of the process.
Conclusion
These proposed reforms change the fundamental principals embedded in the planning scheme, without the necessary detail to understand and assess these changes.
The political purpose of these reforms is to provide developers with greater opportunities for development and stimulate economic activity. The other purpose is to give residents greater certainty and stop redevelopment in select residential areas. In doing so, it potentially fails to address the broader planning, economic and social consequences of only considering these two interest groups.
The combined impact of these changes will have a significant effect on the future character and liveability of Melbourne and its long history of community participation in planning. Further reports will be made to Council as the reforms progress.
Human Rights Consideration
This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
There are potential issues within reforms including changes to Third Party Appeal Rights and the established understanding of allowable uses which can occur within Residential Zones which could be considered as impinging on Human Rights.
Recommendation
That Council note the update to the Planning Zone Reforms.
Glen Eira Debates 
December 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Akehurst’s report on these changes did nothing apart from skimming over most of the things mentioned in the Stonnington list of concerns. It will be full steam ahead that’s obvious. Too bad about amenity environment open space commerce and overall liveability. As long as it’s gung ho more and more development then Glen Eira is all for it.
December 6, 2012 at 1:59 PM
We’ve just received notification that GERA (http://geresidents.wordpress.com) have addressed a letter to Mayor Hyams advocating the purchase of 487 Neerim Rd as acquisition to the municipality’s open space. The letter is available for viewing on their website.
December 6, 2012 at 10:53 PM
I urge all those that read this blog to lobby their ward councillors to raise the issue of the purchase of 487 Neerim Rd. It would be such a lost opportunity if council ignores this. It already adjoins parkland and could be used immediately by the public with little extra outlay.
It is a drop in the bucket financially and could easily have been funded from reserved development levies, if they were adequate. No opportunities like this, which are few and far between in Glen Eira, should be ignored and lost forever. The built environment is becoming more intense with little opportunity to purchase open space.
I sincerely urge all councillors (and the adminstration) to seriously consider what is best for the people they represent, including their children and future generations. i thank goodness for the land previously set aside by our forebears as there has been very little made available in recent decades, even though population density is so much higher. The quarter acre block in Glen Eira is a thing of the past making it imperative to find more open space for those living in smaller areas with no outdoor facilities.
December 7, 2012 at 7:42 AM
By all means contact your ward Councillors just be prepared for a no response.
Like the ill fated Alma Club, and despite a $6m budgeted surplus this year, this Council would rather build underutilised open space gobbling pavillions than actually increase the amount of open space in Glen Eira (487 Neerim Road is a rare opportunity – over 3000 sqm of cleared land right next to a park – pull the paling fence down and hooly dooly).
Of course they won’t admit their pavillion preference – what they’ll say is a need for caution and financial restraint. Then shortly thereafter (as per Murrumbeena Park) they’ll pull X million out of hat to capitalise on the latest grant Miller has got for them from the State Government. Forget the residents or focussing on the long rather than short term. It’s more important to try to provide election support for the Liberal Government as elections are only 2 years away and it ain’t looking good for the Libs
December 6, 2012 at 3:13 PM
When it comes to providing information on the proposed Planning Reform Zones, or anything else, the appropriate catch phrase in Glen Eira is “mum’s the word”. Unlike most other Councils, GE Council delayed doing anything on the zones until just before consultation closed?
You’d have to be off your rocker to expect them to change and suddenly start performing as they should.
December 6, 2012 at 10:23 PM
It should hardly be a surprise that Glen Eira has done such a lousy job in tackling the strategic issues raised by State Government’s proposed new zones. Jeff Akehurst is a fanatical supporter of his Housing Diversity/Minimal Change policy, and he sees the new residential zones as being able to be applied by the Planning Minister via a fast-track process without community consultation. However few of us were ever consulted about the Housing Diversity or even the Urban Village/Neighbourhood Village policies, and these have been so badly abused by the development industry that its time for the public to regain control over their own communities.
Personally, I can’t stand corruption of the sort that plagues “town planning”. There are no standards and no decision guidelines, or at least nothing empirical. The so-called decision guidelines in GEPS provide no guidance. Everything is open to abuse by people who are incapable of empathy. Zones are just part of Planning Schemes, and neither Council nor VCAT are obliged to apply Planning Schemes to their decisions. It is quite legal, but unethical, to ignore all policy that doesn’t support the decisions our decision-makers want. As a result, I would like to see a more prescriptive scheme, one that spells out minimum standards, and one that actually delivers housing diversity, open space, employment, fairness, and amenity to all.