Over the past week there have been numerous announcements about the Residential Zones and their implementation. First off the 7pm ABC News stated that Boroondara and Glen Eira were to be the first to introduce the new zones. Next came 2 Age articles where again Glen Eira was mentioned as being first cab off the rank. Even the Minister’s Media Release this week highlighted the fact that he thought that many councils would introduce the zones within 4 months.
We don’t for a second think that there is nothing to these stories. Such stories don’t just happen. They must have originated from somewhere! You don’t just pluck one or two councils out from 79! What irks us even more is that for the past year not a single statement has come out about the new zones from Glen Eira councillors or administrators – except for the formal submission. Residents have not been informed about a single thing. We do not know:
- Whether there will be any public consultation – which has already been ongoing in countless other councils
- Whether the shambles that constitutes Housing Diversity and Minimal Change will remain untouched?
- What the available height limits will be. Remember nothing is mandatory in Activity Centres.
- Whether Council will abide by the minimalist ResCode standards or attempt to introduce their own?
- Or whether this council is content to rely on plans drawn up eons ago with no further local analyses and comprehensive planning – despite the burgeoning population and the growth of dwellings?
What makes us even more suspicious regarding the intent of excluding the public is that under Section 20 of the Planning and Environment Act, Council has the power to simply request the minister to authorise an amendment without formally notifying residents or seeking submissions. Further, Council’s response to 2 public questions on Tuesday night has only added fuel to the suspicion that residents will be left out in the cold and that the new zones are already a fait accompli.
One question specifically asked when council would begin its public consultation process. The answer was incredibly brief – “Council has not yet decided” and typically uninformative. The other question noted the media reports. Council’s response was that they don’t control the media. True, but when the Leader has in the past published negative articles Council was very quick to denounce and deny the articles. No denial was proffered to this question. We do not for one moment believe that nothing has been decided. And, if ‘undecided’ then what does it say about the overall planning capability of this council and getting their act together in a timely fashion? These zone reforms are important. Council has had a year to decide on the appropriate time. It is far more likely that this answer has as much veracity as countless other public statements by council. We firmly believe that:
- This council will secretly and surreptitiously introduce the new zones
- There will be no public consultation whatsoever
- The anomalies and injustices of planning will continue
If we are right, then every single resident in Glen Eira should be outraged. The Minimal Change and Housing Diversity zoning is a failure. It is a myth that 80% of the municipality is protected. Housing Diversity areas have expanded and expanded to now include all major roads and those roads with trams. Activity centre and neighbourhood centre ‘borders’ have also grown – especially if they are anywhere near a railway line. Thus if anything, it is no longer 80/20 but a conservative 70/30. Furthermore, most high density is in these growing areas where we’ve had 8, 10 and 12 storeys approved. It is no longer a single application for dual townhouses. Blocks of land are now seen to quite comfortably accommodate 3-4 storeys and 30 units. And even in the much lauded Minimal Change, if the land is on a corner block, or happens to be a tad larger than the average, or lies a few hundred metres from an Activity Centre, then it’s become the norm for multi-unit development.
Our guesstimate is that as a result of this cramming, perhaps 50% of Glen Eira’s population now resides in these areas. Council of course hasn’t undertaken a ‘review’ of its Housing Strategy since the dark ages and it wouldn’t surprise us at all if they have absolutely no idea of population densities in each suburb. That’s the sort of work that needed to be going on over the past few years and definitely needs to be going on now – BEFORE any arbitrary zoning lines are drawn on the municipal map. If any of these figures are available, then we simply challenge this council to produce them and argue its case.
What is even more discriminatory is that these high density areas are not accorded the basics of social and environmental amenity according to this planning scheme. They lack adequate open space provision; landscaping; onsite car parking. They are also subject to greater site coverage and it is not considered too bad if 25% of dwelling don’t get natural sunlight. That is the legacy of this planning scheme and its creators. And this is what will continue if the zones are simply rubber stamped. In 2002 people did not realise the repercussions of the amendment which established all this (c25). Now it is clear to everyone. Residents must have a say on their future. If not, this council should be dismissed.
Finally, we include the consultation program that Stonnington has set out for the next few months. Its willingness to engage and encourage residents is the total reverse of what happens in Glen Eira on so many fronts.
Glen Eira Debates 
July 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM
We all know what the situation will be with this council. The outcomes have already been decided for sure. If not then let one of the many councilors who read this blog tell us that this is not true. So will my neighbourhood that is near a train station now have 8 stories and more approved??? Will we have less than zero protection from even higher densities that we ever thought was possible ????- of course we will!!!!. The administration will achieve its vision – there will be no opportunity for community input – as usually happens in this place – councilors will say nothing – we will be blighted forever with developments we don’t want or need – and the developers will get richer and richer. This outcome can only be changed if councilors for once truly represent their constituents and put pressure on the administration – go on councilors DO IT!
July 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM
The Alma club’s in minimal change. Didn’t save them from having 75 units hanging over their heads and the morons saying 73 is okay.
July 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM
It does appear that the Administration has already decided not to consult the community, but we don’t know whether their decision has been communicated to councillors. Council itself, as far as it is possible to tell, hasn’t made a decision—it doesn’t appear in the subset of Minutes Council makes public.
Yes, under the execrable Planning and Environment Act, the Minister can exempt himself or herself from various provisions that would give the public a say in the extent to which their amenity is to be sold off. The Minister should, if he’s thinking of doing this, at least state that is his intention. At a minimum, he should reveal why he believes GECC will be one of the first to adopt the new Zones.
Remember too that Jeff Akehurst knowingly misled Council last year in his report concerning the New Zones, equating 12.5m with 3 storeys. [RGZ subsequently raised the default “maximum” height to 13.5-14.5m.] Giving the public an opportunity to comment on the Administration’s plans is important for correcting the errors and flaws in the “advice” the Administration has provided to Council.
The silence of councillors on the subject of the new Zones suggests they either don’t care or prefer the Administration’s views over those of residents. Its pretty typical of modern politics that they can campaign on opposing “inappropriate development” but then not have a clue what they mean by it. Soundbites over substance.
Reference is made above to the boundaries of activity centres. Principle and Major Activity Centres are “defined” by the State Government through DPCD. DPCD has never defined the boundaries though, just provided a list of suburb names. Melbourne 2030 established various design principles for Activity Centres, which Council’s Urban Villages don’t comply with. This is likely to be just one of many reasons for Council failing to prepare Structure Plans for activity centres despite it being state policy to have them.
Its a myth that the new Zones are intended to improve planning outcomes—its main goal is fewer objections and shorter queues at VCAT. The key weakness in both the old and new Zones is the lack of context in decision-making: the emphasis on the building envelope itself rather than the properties around them, or the capacity of the infrastructure in the vicinity.
M2030 pointed out that it was looking to make more efficient use of existing infrastructure. What is actually happening is that demand is being created for *new* infrastructure faster than our tiers of government are prepared to fund—the lack of open space and inadequate public transport are just two of many examples. Cr Hyams is on record as believing that if you are 2.4km from a resource then you are in “close proximity” and therefore well-served. Problems have simply been redefined out of existence.
July 7, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Giving this much information will only confuse the residents. Much better to leave them uninformed and let the professionals handle it. The residents are much too busy earning the bucks for the ever increasing rates to be concerned about what the zones will allow to be built around them or that they will no longer be able to park in their own street.
Seriously, unless the residents show that they care and are prepared to demand consultation on the new zones and recognize that raising the hard questions 2 years from now is way too late then they probably deserve what they get. The writing is on the wall – anyone who does care NOW should already be in contact with the real estate agent.
July 7, 2013 at 3:21 PM
Whats the point of Council consulting the residents – Council will ignore whatever they say anyway. It’ll just take time, cost money, give rise to questions they don’t want to answer. Much better just the ignore the residents right from the start (spare the residents the frustration).
July 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Hymas is way off the mark, he is either ignorant or just dumb to say 2.4km away from infrastructure. Hardly anyone from new developments use public transport. Very soon there will be floods taking place and hopefully, people will chase him.
July 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM
The Friends of Caulfield Park have released their latest newsletter (http://www.caulfieldpark.com/). Of note are the following ‘negatives’ that reveal exactly how much emphases this council gives to genuine consultation – zero!
1. concreting of the depot
2. ripping out more trees
3. refusal to have this community group contribute to the conservatory ‘survey’. We’ve heard that this latter decision was based on the argument that this group had a ‘vested interest’. This in itself stands in opposition to what Delahunty stated several meetings ago – ie. that she welcomes the contribution of community groups since they do not represent only individuals, but a significant sector of the community. Perhaps she was unaware of the letter signed by Hyams – or the advocacy for community groups was merely public grandstanding.
July 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM
A key feature of the new zones is that they allow schedules to the zones to specify mandatory standards for a subset of Rescode, particularly height limits. In the past its all been discretionary, which has made it meaningless. GEPS s55 says that the Standards should be met, but for so many multi-unit developments, they’re not. S55 explicitly says it doesn’t apply to developments of 4-storeys or more, and it allows “alternative design solutions” provided they meet the associated objective. Ruthless individuals in the planning system have taken this to mean that they don’t have to comply with the standards. It has proven irrelevant to Council, council staff and VCAT that simply failing to comply isn’t in itself an alternative design solution.
The new zones, by default, don’t introduce mandatory standards. GRZ and RGZ by default are both more permissive than the RZ1 they are intended to replace. Council would need to insert height limits into the associated Schedules for the limits to be mandatory. We don’t know what Council is planning: what height limits they’re going to specify, or go with the default of no [mandatory] height limits.
175 Balaclava Rd obviously fails to meet several amenity Standards, and sat on its permit for years. Somebody at Council will have extended the Permit repeatedly. You have to wonder how the hell somebody could get permission to build a 2.5 metre balcony over a footpath in a Residential Zone, and ignore completely the front setback requirement. Clearly developers have a lot of political clout.
July 8, 2013 at 10:51 AM
I admire Stonnington’s commitment to its residents and how much is done out in the open. That’s transparency for you. Skimming through only one or two of their officer reports is like living on another planet from Glen Eira.
July 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM
And check out what Kingston Council is doing also as reported on this blog previously and on their website. It was truly another planet when I went to Kingston Council community consultation meeting explaining the new Residental Planning Zones.
July 8, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Consultation on the introduction of the zones is an absolute must. By this I don’t mean any mock consultation that has been the policy of this council in the past. If nothing eventuates then I personally blame the 9 councillors who have been elected to represent their wards. It is unconscionable that no public announcement has been made on these matters.
July 8, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Council needs to come out and state unequivocally whether or not they will be having a public consultation. If there is consultation then announce the duration and the format. If no consultation then this leaves residents in no doubt as to the sort of council now ensconced.
July 8, 2013 at 6:59 PM
D. Evans – You seem to be a philosopher in your writings. Which of the 9 Councillors belong to your ward? Why don’t you pick up the phone and call them?
July 8, 2013 at 7:52 PM
Is being called a “philosopher” a compliment? I’m not too sure. Philosophers deal with very esoteric and existential questions. Councillors are meant to deal with entirely pragmatic issues that concern all residents. It’s not relevant who my councillors are since phone calls, emails, and meetings never achieve the desired results for residents. Councillors are also meant to work in unison for the benefit of the entire municipality, so if a complaint is registered about one area or issue then in all likelihood this would apply elsewhere as well. The derelict house in Tucker Road is just the latest example. I would guarantee that there is more than one such property in Glen Eira and that they are located in wards outside Tucker. All councillors should be concerned to solve this problem.
July 8, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Ya know sometimes there a really big issues with far reaching consequences that impact all residents. In these instances, Councillors (who read the same newspapers or watch the same TV shows as residents) shouldn’t need to told – they should be able to make the connection themselves and act (as they are supposed to do) in the interests of residents.
It’s obvious from their silence on the planning reform zones that unfortunately they aren’t able to make the connection or act so they need to be told – your suggestion of calling them has some merit.