This afternoon’s LARGE Community Forum had a terrific turnout and very informative speakers. Apparently all Glen Eira councillors and some senior planning staff were invited. To their credit the only councillors to show up were Lobo, Delahunty and Magee. No officer turned up and no other councillors.
Since the afternoon was videotaped we’re assuming that LARGE will upload a full record of the formal presentation on their website (http://www.largeinc.com.au) so we won’t comment on this aspect of the event. Instead we will focus on some of the questions or comments that members of the audience made and the remarks made by the above councillors in response.
One resident asked that the map of the new zones be put up on the screen. He was from Wheeler St., Ormond which is a ‘purple area’ (4 storeys). He expressed ‘sorrow’ for anyone who lived in such areas because they were ‘high density zones’. His problem was that it was also a ‘flooding zone’ and there had been some progress with melbourne Water and council about upgrading drains but ‘without upgrades of infrastructure’ council is ‘still approving development’. They went to VCAT opposing a 3 storey development and they won. But that was several months ago, before the introduction of the zones, so the resident wanted to know what this means for the new development now – ie could there be another application and a permit granted because this is now a higher density zone. The resident asked if ‘council is stronger than VCAT?’
Professor Buxton explained that there are other forms of control via layers of overlays and if there is one he felt that VCAT would uphold it – although he didn’t know the extent of Glen Eira’s overlays. Delahunty then said that council is continuing to ‘look for new areas to apply neighbourhood character overlays’ and these are ‘primarily in the green section of the map’ (minimal change). Said that with permeability controls, height controls and other things that ‘we are quite proud of’ and that ‘VCAT cannot overturn’. She didn’t forsee any change to the current flooding zone.
Another member of the audience then began her question by saying that the data that the residential zones are based on comes from figures of the nineties. Things have changed a lot since then and the floods of 2011 impacted on a huge area near her. Yet council still grants permits and hasn’t taken into account ‘greater surface’ for buildings which means ‘greater flooding’ and all this whilst there’s been ‘limited infrastructure upgrades’. Said that she lived in the ‘purple zone’ and that council has been ‘quite remiss’ in blocking themselves off from the community. (applause). ‘there is definitely no regard for us living in this area’. Claimed that she had spoken with planners at council and asked what consideration was given to ‘infrastructure’ and their response was ‘oh, we looked at it in 2000’ and that she should take it to council. Mentioned ‘schools bursting at the seams’ and whilst a state responsibility, council still has to advocate but it ‘seems that our rights in Glen Eira have been overlooked’. Schools and kindergartens are ‘bursting at the seams’ and whilst there is a train station there is no bus service’. Talked about traffic and that ‘yes’ 3 storey limit is great’ but it’s not enough.
Another speaker then said that she finds the ‘of right uses’ (ie no permit required) ‘abhorrent’ since it removes her rights as a resident to object, ‘voice my concern, to be heard’. Asked if this is in fact an abuse of administrative and legal power as well as a ‘denial of natural justice’ (applause). Buxton answered that the government has justified this by granting ‘certainty’ and removing delays therefore saving money for everyone. Said irony of all this is that there are heaps of Section 2 uses (service stations etc.) that can then get permits. Government hasn’t prohibited anything and there are no height controls for commercial areas and will be a huge problem because these of right uses don’t have height limits applied to them.
Buxton also stated that the criteria to assess these uses in residential areas are ‘very vague’ so anything could go into a residential street. Said that these ‘criteria’ are supposed to be ‘performance measures’ but they are anything but performance measures – ie will they cause ‘detriment’ to someone. These are vague and all subjective. Buxton then went on to say that a planning scheme is a legal document and people’s rights are either ‘given’ or ‘taken away’ via the planning scheme.
Several residents then gave examples of battles they had won elsewhere and the call was for ‘people power’.
Another residents asked whether VCAT could still ignore ResCode standards if councils simply defaulted to these in its schedules since VCAT often ignored ResCode in the past. Buxton responded that if specified in the schedules such as height then this was mandatory but it was vital that councils apply ‘the maximum powers they have under the schedules’. Gave the example that council could have stipulated one dwelling per lot but Glen Eira didn’t – they’ve allowed 2 dwellings per lot. Where there is medium or high density and there is no specifications by council then they will be assessed under ResCode. Problem is that ResCode only applies to 3 storeys so applications for 4 or more storeys in Residential Growth Zones won’t even have these ‘standards’. ‘No developer in his or her right mind is going to apply for a 3 storey development in a commercial zone when there’s no height control’. Also the guide that assesses higher density is ‘even less strict than ResCode’. So ‘not only do you get an incentive to go over 3 storeys but you’re being assessed against a weaker code’…’you’d have to be nuts not to do it’.
One ‘brown zone’ resident said she was ‘shocked’ by what has been said. Asked if it’s true that those living in these areas have no rights and no protection and that the lovely heritage places around her have no value whatwoever except for developers. Buxton said that ‘you lose rights if application relates to Section 1 uses’ otherwise people can still go to VCAT. (SECTION 1 INCLUDES ‘food and drink premises’ within 100 metres of commercial zones; shops, medical centres, places of worship etc.) Many of these are ‘high impact’ that people won’t be able to do anything about. The other problem here is that there are no height limits on such uses so a hypothetical could be a 9 storey application with no rights to objection next door to a single storey.
Comments from Backlash about population growth and no planning for infrastructure – transport. Buxton claimed that no government is confronting the planning for a city of 6.5 million people by 2050 because it will cost 25 to 50 billion just in transport.
LOBO then spoke saying that ‘it’s a pity the other 6 councillors did not turn up’. Said that Labor lost ‘because of Justin Madden’ at the last election and now we’ve got Matthew Guy ‘who became mad’ and is ‘on his way out’. Told residents that they should ‘go to the State Member of Parliament’ and that when councillors promise to stop development so that the ‘next time’ they come to ‘your house’ asking for your vote ‘throw a bucket of water on their face’. He then said that ‘personally I have to go with the council decision’ and that he doesn’t ‘agree’ and that ‘I made that very clear’ and as he’s already said that ‘Melbourne is going to be like Calcutta’.
After a few more questions and comments on community activism and networking Magee spoke.
MAGEE: said he wanted to bring the discussion back to ‘some basic’ facts. Said that previously they only had ‘policies’ and not ‘zones’ and the former weren’t ‘enforceable’. This meant that ‘quite often’ at VCAT the ‘developer would win’. Claimed that ‘now’ the green areas were about ‘78% of Glen Eira’ and that developers therefore know that 2 dwellings is the maximum and that 2 storeys is the maximum. ‘that is not arguable through VCAT’. The blue zones are ‘a maximum of 3 storeys’ and the light blue is also 3 storeys and has ‘the greatest setback between the light blue and the green’. Brown is another zone with 4 storey maximum. Said that even with permitted uses in Glen Eira ‘not a lot has changed’. Said that in 2010 there was ‘quite significant’ consultation althought people might disagree with this. So all that’s happened is that the policies have ‘been changed over to zones’.
Another resident then stated that the spin doctors were outin force because the zones were rushed through and therefore they didn’t have time to consult with residents. Said that previously there were transition areas between the brown and blue zones and now there isn’t any. Asked if you own a house in a green zone and next door in the brown zone someone builds a 4 storey and blocks your solar panels what rights do residents have?
MAGEE: conceded that buildings could be 4 storeys but that ‘have to set back from 4 to 3 to 2’ and said this was a ‘natural setback’ and even in the growth zones (brown) these are ‘bordered by general residential zone’ (light blue)
DELAHUNTY: said that council had tried to have ‘transition zones in the past. Now we actually have transition zones’ and that ResCode could be applied to 4 storey buildings and council was trying to make transition zones enforceable whereas before they weren’t and now they are.
One resident got up and asked that those councillors who are present take back to their groups the community feeling that community consultation is what is needed and that rather than having the plans ‘left at the library where someone has to go with a magnifying glass’ to make head or tails out of it.
MAGEE: said that Glen Eira has the least amount of open space and that ‘there is no way that we are looking to encroach on open space’. The white areas on the maps are open space but ‘predominantly commercial zones’. Said that the first test is ‘about to come up’ in regards to the Virginia Park industrial site. Claimed that the Minister was approached by the developer to rezone without public consultation. Said that MP Miller had written to council and ‘endorsed’ the Minister’s position ‘not to go to public consultation’. Said that ‘council has actually fought that’ and will be putting it out under normal amendment processes which means public consultation. ‘These things are not debatable in council’. Said that council and ‘i’m one of them, I’m very proud of these zones’. Said that nothing has changed except that they have ‘guaranteed’ ‘maximum height limits’ in 98%’ of the municipality.
Glen Eira Debates 
September 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM
3 councillors fronted so some kudos to them. Judging by this, their contributions would have warmed the cockles of Newton’s heart. The same old spin and the same old lies. Both Delahunty and Magee allegedly used the phrase transition zones. There is no such zone as plenty of people said. Three or four storeys can go up next to a single storey. That’s not a zone. Making each level recede a little more doesn’t solve any problem and only makes lack of infrastructure and increased site coverage ten times worse. If these councillors are proud of their achievements then we are in deep, deep trouble.
September 16, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Interesting to hear the Councillor’s comments on the old vs. the new planning scheme when Council spent years, despite constant residents complaints that the “old” planning scheme was inadequate, and claiming that the planning scheme was great and the villain was VCAT.
Well
Why should I believe them now?
If the “zones” are so good why didn’t they consult the residents?
Why aren’t they holding information sessions on the zones? (now that they have rammed it through)
September 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Where was the Mayor that evening? or for that matter his gang. It is not clear that they were in favour of the new zones to support the government? This together with the clause that the mayor wanted to insert in the Code of Conduct to support his friends Miller and Southwick clearly shows he is working for his mates and not residents.Time to expose the gang, similar to the electricity advertisement that used to be screened a year ago.
September 16, 2013 at 12:31 PM
I thought Delahunty and Magee spoke very well and got their point across to all those in attendance, and good on them for having the good manners to turn up.
But I must say Cr Lobo added nothing to the discussions.
September 16, 2013 at 12:45 PM
When Cr Lobo said that “personally I have to go with the council decision’ and that he doesn’t ‘agree”. Does this mean that he votes the way he is told and not the way he wants?
Question, Did Cr Lobo vote for the new Zones?
September 16, 2013 at 1:23 PM
“Decision” and “vote” are strange words to employ when no council resolution was passed and all discussions were under wraps until the formal announcement by the minister. Proves the failure of governance in Glen Eira and how private deals are made away from public awareness and scrutiny.
I endorse the criticisms of all councillors. Unless they are prepared to stand up and reveal the true facts then they would have been better off not attending.
September 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Not the first time (and won’t be the last time) Lobo justifies voting for something he doesn’t agree with simply because it’s going to pass regardless of how he votes.
While I can accept that Councillors have to support a decision made by the majority, I just can’t see why Lobo interprets that as meaning every decision must be recorded as unanimous. There is such a thing as recording a dissenting vote and also the ability to say “while I disagree with the decision made, other Councillors supported it on the basis of yardee yardee ya”
September 16, 2013 at 6:42 PM
I went yesterday out of curiosity and what councillors had to say didn’t go down to well with the audience. People want to know that they aren’t going to be forced to move out of streets that they’ve lived in for decades and that their rights are protected. It was made clear in spades that they’d have to move because the zones don’t offer a scrap of protection for anyone living adjacent to the blue and brown zones. If Magee and Delahunty are proud of this then they have got their heads screwed on wrong.
September 16, 2013 at 8:47 PM
How come the virginia business isn’t negotiable by council but the residential zones are? My thinking on this is that if Miller was labor then Magee and the others would keep their traps shut. No consistency and plenty of hypocrisy. They pick and choose when their bosses reckon they can be let off the chain but not when it really matters like with the zones. This goes on Newton’s cv and stuff residents.
September 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM
What didn’t come across all that clearly from the afternoon is that almost all of the amenity standards continue to be purely discretionary. Specifying a setback in a schedule to GRZ doesn’t mean Council or council staff or VCAT will comply in the future. I was pleased to hear Michael Buxton point out that the “Decision Guidelines” in planning schemes aren’t decision guidelines and provide no guidance. Responsible Authorities are free to waive compliance anyway—just takes those magic words “considered acceptable”.
September 16, 2013 at 9:43 PM
I give credit to Magee, Delahunty and Lobo for showing up to the forum – the fact that their comments were delivered with varying public speaking skills and all indicated limited knowledge of the zones does not diminish the fact that they at least had the guts to show up.
The major thing that this forum showed is that the “worm is turning” and, though a long time coming, it is heartening to know that residents are slowly but surely are waking up – lets just hope they wake up enough to effect real change by the time of the next Council election.
September 16, 2013 at 9:55 PM
We are one of the lucky ones, supposedly, living in a protected zone in Elsternwick where we’ve been promised only two storey and two dwellings on one block. In the past 18 months there have been 4 subdivisions in our street and it’s not too hard to guess what will happen next. The single storey charm is already gone and traffic multiplied incredibly. I can only imagine what it must be like to live in a housing diversity area. That’s hell and many of the people at yesterday’s event made this clear. For those poor souls who end up in commercial zones it will be double hell. They will live in boxes that will never get sunlight and will have to rely on memory about trees and parks. Michael Buxton’s urging for councils to do all in their power to use the scope they’ve got has fallen on deaf ears in this council.
September 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM
Don’t want to be the bearer of more bad news for you Anon but you should ditch the concept of two dwellings per block – it’s pure spin.
The 2 dwellings per block concept was included in the now replaced Minimal Change Policy – it is not a new concept. It’s now in the Schedule attached to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone – as such it is not mandatory, it is discretionary, which means it is not binding and is open to interpretation. The same discretionary conditions/exemptions that applied to the Minimal Change Policy have been copied verbatim to the Schedule for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. You’ve seen how well that worked – it is ridiculous to claim this offers any increased “certainty” or is even worth mentioning as a new zone “selling point” .
Council and VCAT are still free to determine that any NRZ site is suitable for “more intensive development” – based on site size (above a certain size or larger than average), proximity to the intensive zones, corner lot, public transport access, to name but a few. The only certainty you currently have is the height of what will be built, there is no certainty attached to the number of dwellings. As to how long the current mandatory height limits will stay is anybody’s guess but history suggests it won’t be long.
September 16, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Dear Anonymous concerned – I must confess, as I have done previously on this forum as well as in the chambers, that I do read the comments on various topics posted by Glen Eira. If I have to respond then I do it under proper name and not as an alien from another planetary system yet to be detected.
The last I wrote was some 2 years ago then with my name as well.
An average Australian who has travelled the world is often found to give people a chance/benefit of doubt to explain themselves and they do not sit on the judgement seat like one reads through 100% negative comments.
There is nothing as useless human being or for that matter the local government representatives. Australians are also known to give people a second chance something that is rare and cannot be found in many countries if we have travelled to. Perhaps, this may not be everyone’s forte and it is understandable.
Hiding behind “anonymous” speak volumes. People who do not read this site are heard saying that there are around 6-7 people writing over and over again, similar to the so called ‘faceless” people and they compare to anonymous to Canberra during Rud/Gillard’s reign. Given names has better meaning to the views expressed and an opportunity to answer the person.
In a forum, there are two ways of raising an issue – one is a question and other is a statement. Both are equally important, sometimes, the moderator decides not to answer a difficult question and it is the moderators prerogative to say that he/she will take that issue as a statement.
Similarly, if you have issues with any of your Ward Councillors, the decent thing to do is to pick up the phone and talk to them. Naming and shaming Councillors without any proof is not a civilised way and can be attributed to third world countries such as Middle East and Asia.
Personally, I am trying to give back to my adopted country rather than people viewing me and my family as suckers of all the sacrifices made by the Australian soldiers. I do this even though my community keeps asking why are you doing the job of serving the people and I consider that statement as Ignorance is Bliss. It does not need an answer.
It would be good to see you in our next Council meeting and introduce yourselves.Comments based on someone else’s work may not be a way of a professional. What better way to change this around and take personal interest in attending to the community consultations, standing for elections and then be the agent of change to what you would like the Council to be. I for one, will welcome you wholeheartedly. The challenge then is, will you reveal your name?
I am reminded here of a quote by Thomas Fuller “Zeal without knowledge is fire without light.”