Bayside Council given green light to stop new high-rises

Date: November 13, 2014 – 6:57AM

One of Melbourne’s richest municipalities has been given the green light by Planning Minister Matthew Guy to virtually eradicate any new medium-density and high-rise housing development in its residential areas.

Mr Guy on Sunday, according to Liberal Party colleague Murray Thompson, visited his seat of Sandringham.

The seat takes in much of Bayside Council’s areas.

Mr Guy gave the go-ahead to the council – which covers suburbs including Brighton, Sandringham and Beaumauris – to block high-density development in residential areas.

Mr Guy was quoted, in a press release sent out by Mr Thompson, as saying the government would not force the council to put any part of its suburbs into a new “Residential Growth Zone”.

The Residential Growth Zone gives land owners and developers the right to build up to four levels on a site.

Previously Mr Guy’s office had, according to former mayor Laurie Evans, directed the council to put the controversial new zoning over at least three per cent of its areas.

The council had proposed putting the zoning on suburbs including Highett and Cheltenham in largely single-level streets.

It caused an outcry from residents in these areas, who were not consulted before the zoning was proposed to be applied to their areas


Council to re-evaluate residential zones in Bayside

12 November 2014

Bayside City Council has called an urgent Special Meeting of Council for 18 November following indications from the Napthine Government that it will not require a minimum quota of Residential Growth Zone in Bayside.

In a media release dated 10 November 2014, Member for Sandringham Murray Thompson quoted Planning Minister Matthew Guy saying that “the Napthine Government will not prescribe any minimum amount of land that must be zoned ‘Residential Growth” in the City of Bayside”.

And that furthermore “The Napthine Government will support the City of Bayside should it wish to make any changes to the proposed Residential Growth Zones in Highett and Cheltenham, particularly land that is not on a main road or within former industrial sites”.

Bayside Mayor Cr Felicity Frederico welcomed the announcement.

“Bayside City Council has always advocated the ability of Council to undertake planning decisions that reflect the desires, needs and expectations of our community,” Cr Frederico said.

“Council’s initial position was that 0.1% of Bayside was suitable for change to Residential Growth Zone,”

Council was then directed by the Office of the Minister for Planning to identify areas along the Frankston train line that could be allocated to the new Residential Growth Zone

“In response to the direction of the Office of the Minister for Planning, Council agreed that 3% of Bayside’s residential land along the Frankston train line should be referred to the Minister’s Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee for consideration,” Cr Frederico said.

“This was undertaken in return for the initial position of Council being approved at the earliest possible time by the Minister using his direct powers of approval.

The Special Meeting of Council to re-evaluate the application of the Residential Growth Zone in Bayside will be held in the Council Chambers on Tuesday 18 November at 6:30pm prior to the regular Planning & Amenity Committee Meeting. The meeting is open to members of the public.

“Bayside City Council is pleased that the Napthine Government has agreed to work with Council and the community to ensure appropriate levels of development in our residential neighbourhoods” Cr Frederico said.

Details of the Special Meeting
Tuesday 18 November at 6:30pm
Council Chambers, Civic Centre, 15 Boxshall Street, Brighton


13 Responses to “Friends In High Places?”

  1. D.Evans Says:

    Thompson’s media release is eye opening because he quotes Guy as saying that there’s no need for growth zones in areas that aren’t main roads. Glen Eira has put these zones into local streets all over the place. Here’s more ammunition for change and to scrap all the growth zones apart from the commercial areas. It is outrageous that Bayside can receive some huge concessions and Glen Eira refuses even to try when the writing is on the wall and they can see what damage they have allowed to happen. All council can do is maintain the lie that Glen Eira is the best protected. Nobody with a brain and a pair of eyes can believe any of this.

  2. Reprobate Says:

    One thing that is wrong in the article is that RGZ does NOT give land owners and developers “the right to build up to four levels on a site”. There is no such right. What it does do [unless varied in a Schedule] is specify a mandatory maximum height that a 4-storey development can fit in. There are other amenity standards and “decision criteria” that a development should meet, but they’re all discretionary and can be ignored.

    One problem with RGZ is that it implies 4 storeys is the preferred character for an area. Glen Eira had a preferred character of 2 storeys plus hip roof for areas that it has now zoned RGZ. It is now clear that it traded off the amenity of some residents unnecessarily and unjustifiably to secure favourable treatment through use of NRZ elsewhere.

    The reasons why RGZ is unnecessary were minuted by DTPLI at a meeting between Cr Hyams and the Minister. We have 87 years supply of development potential given the current zoning that Council has adopted. [Even 87 years sounds rubbery since commercial zones have no height limits and VCAT have stripped them of all amenity standards.] If more stringent amenity standards were applied, including use of GRZ and NRZ and not RGZ, there would still be at least 65 years supply. RGZ was a political demand that came from the development industry and was championed by the Minister against Planning and his Chief-of-Staff [anybody get to vote for Richard Brice?].

    If only our Council would put as much effort into what it should be doing to improve the planning scheme as it does in dissembling. The new zones are NOT a neutral applicaton of policy. Our councillors should resign.

    1. D King Says:

      Prof Rob Adams paper “Transforming Cities May 2010” has dealt with the issue of development along transport corridors and saving suburbs. Glen Eira required only 6% to 10% of its area to be built up to get additional population between 47,000 and 115,000. What do we get? Twenty per cent minimum with RGZ and GRZ with additional supply in significant parcels and built up Local Activity Centers within NRZ. Yes, our councillors should be voted out and Planning Department filled with staff knowing how to design a city, not how to manipulate the rules of Town Planning.

  3. Macca Says:

    Councillors should resign immediately for a variety of reasons. First and foremost this community requires individuals who are prepared to question, scrutinise, and demand answers. This lot I would bet have meekly accepted every single bit of opinion that Newton has placed in front of their noses. This in itself is a failure to perform due diligence and oversight. It would be good to know exactly what councillors were told in regard to the zones and what information in writing were they granted access to. Then what questions did they ask and how often. How many of them delved further than what occured in briefing sessions. I have grave doubts whether any of this occurred or how deeply any of them bothered to go. If no real questioning occurred then it is negligence of the highest order. For that reason alone there should be mass resignations.

    1. anon Says:

      Macca, you have all the ideas. It would be expected you will nominate for the next Council elections in 2016. Of course you will have to use your real name. We will keep an eye out for you.

      1. Annonymous Says:

        Macca (a fake name) and anonymous Idiots abroad should all stand for next local elections and put their toes where they can be shoved i.e. nose. Surely, all the bloody anonymous including me will challenge u’s old f…s

        1. Macca Says:

          Thank you both for your advice and I might just take you up on that. I surely could not do any worse than our current band of 9 merrry men and women. One of my first moves as a councillor in case you are interested would be to terminate the Newton contract. That would set the ball rolling for genuine reform.

          1. anon Says:

            Not a bad election promise. Get plenty of votes with that one.

        2. A. Nonymous Says:

          Ah jeez, it seems that the folks who think nobody has a right to comment on or criticize elected representatives unless they have stood for election still exist.

          These folk should consider the widely known and well respected political commentators that exist in every democracy but had never stood for or held elected representative positions. Perhaps if they did consider it, they would realise what a truly substandard point they are making or even better move to another country where an individuals right to have, and express, an opinion is not recognised..

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Rabble is what we’ve got in Glen Eira. Useless and incompetent and not giving a damn about a significant proportion of the population.

  5. Peter Jenkins Says:

    Planning is corrupt in Victoria and I include councils. Look at the caulfield village for the best example.

  6. stir like hell Says:

    Nothing will change in Glen Eira until Andrew Newton and Paul Burke disappear from the scene. Then and only then residents may have half a chance to be listened to, whether it is about MRC or over-development.

    Of course over-development and population explosion would not take place in Melbourne if the Vic Gov’t would concentrate on fast regional public transport and regional development. Unfortunately, developers would not make such a quick buck in regional centres. They have a greater say than you or me. Hopeless.

    Still, stir like hell and change the State government now.

Comments are closed.