On the 1st July 2013 the Minister for Planning gazetted the amendment which gave councils one year to introduce the new residential zones into their municipalities. Prior to this, a draft of the new zones had been released (July 2012) and public submissions were called for. The closing date for these submissions was the 21st September 2012.
Whilst other councils had countless ‘information sessions’ for residents, plus detailed information up on their websites, Glen Eira had nothing. It was not until the council meeting of September 4th 2012 that residents had a chance to even see what council’s submission would be like. That left exactly 17 days before submissions closed. It also took several amended motions at this council meeting to even get anything up on council’s website.
Looking back at our report of this evening we remind readers of the following statements by councillors –
TANG: Foreshadowed an amendment because ‘this represents a discussion paper’….’missing community input directly’. Said that in his experience ‘people want to know’ whether something is going or not ‘and they want some input at an early stage’…..No reason we can’t facilitate the community giving their views as well’.
LIPSHUTZ: that since it’s taken officers a fair bit of time to understand them, he wasn’t ‘sure how in a very short period of time we’re going to have the public understand’. Worried that all this would ‘scare’ the public and be ‘misinterpreted’. The community should be involved only at the second phase.
Source: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/patronising-paternalistic-pathetic/
A very important part of the resolution from this meeting read:
Council notes that this resolution only has effect insofar as it relates to Council’s submission to the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) , and that Council will consider the details of the transition, to the extent that it is able, once the Minister has determined the new zones.
The implication of this resolution is clear. Council is endorsing the submission, but NOT THE FINAL INTRODUCTION OF THE ZONES. That is to come back to Council, (with a capital ‘C’) – denoting in anyone’s language that a formal Council resolution is required prior to the adoption of the new zones.
This of course did not happen. For all the spin about ‘consultation’ at ‘phase 2’ the zones were introduced in secret and without a single murmur. Council washed its hands of all its obligations to ‘engage’, ‘inform’ and ‘consider’ resident views, firstly in its submission to the draft, and then on its implementation. Here again we have evidence that resolutions do not mean a thing in Glen Eira. They can be ignored, not acted upon, and simply left to rot in the archives.
What makes matters even worse, is that the deplorable spin that accompanied the introduction of the zones included the furphy that Council had already consulted with residents on its 2010 ‘review’ of the Planning Scheme. There was nothing in the outcomes of the ‘review’, and certainly not in anything that council has done since, that were within a bull’s roar of having anything to do with reassessing the minimal change/housing diversity policies. In fact, 4 years down the track and most of the ‘recommendations’ coming from the ‘review’ have still to be actioned. All that has been done is the miniscule expansion of the Significant Character Overlay to a few areas and the introduction of amendment after amendment which rezoned tracts of land making them ‘suitable’ for residential development.
We’ve extracted the relevant ‘recommendations’ passed by Council and highlighted all that have not yet been attended to – and please note the ‘internal’ assessments rather than open, transparent, public consultation! After four years, this is indeed a dismal record and totally demolishes the argument that the review of 2010 had anything to do with what was to come.
It is now 4 years later and we still have not had a Planning Scheme Review! Oh, we forget, these have all been done ‘internally’!
November 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM
Nice research work, “Least Not We Forget” what spin come from the officers, and the ineptitude of or councillors that are very happy to support the spin and not the residents, cowards to the man
November 16, 2014 at 10:46 PM
Consultation on anything that is important does not exist in Glen Eira and never has. How any elected representative can stand by and allow this to happen is beyond me. Quite frankly it is a disgrace that so many of the objectives outlined in these pages have not been completed or even started. Newton clearly wants the status quo to remain and that is not in the best interests of residents. It is only in the best interests of developers who are the ones who generally instigate amendments and then reap the profits.
November 17, 2014 at 12:04 AM
Frankly speaking, there is not much one can do about consultation until the current top executives will change. That can only happen after some of the current Councillors are replaced hopefully with more community friendly ones in 2 years time. I also can’t see that anything can be done in regards to the development issue as the New Zones will not change whichever party governs and the practice can only be evaluated in time.
For the next 2 years the best strategy is to support the Council on two issues: MRC and open space. The MRC issue is to do with composition of trustees, proper rental arrangements, opening up access and establishing sports grounds. Increasing open space ca only be done by purchasing land or being gifted crown land.
All those issues depend on the support of the next State Government. We know what is the Liberal party view if they will be re-elected. Does anybody know what is the Labor Party view on this? The answer will shape my voting pattern.
November 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM
Actually, there is quite a bit Council can do on the development issue – no it can’t stop development and I don’t think anyone would want that. What the community wants is development that is planned – by that I mean using the various overlays and planning conditions that would minimise the adverse impacts for everyone. Although that’s not too much to ask for, Council thinks it is and therefore does nothing.
As to the MRC and the Racecourse – all pollies love racing because it gives them opportunities to wine and dine and network. However, the Libs (particularly under racing enthusiast Napthine) love racing more than Labor. While Southwick is claiming credit for the landscaping of the racecourse, it was in fact a 2009 Labor imposed condition of the landswap. The election of the Libs, saw the other conditions of the landswap swept under the carpet (these were providing both visual and physical (above ground) access to the race course via the Glen Eira Road Park, provision of more access points and improved promotion of the park by replacing the solid fencing with open fencing). In addition under the Libs, as per the auditor generals report, the overseeing govt. departments have knowingly let the Racing run rampant.
November 17, 2014 at 7:45 AM
An astonishing posting. 12 months prior to retrospectively imposing the zones without consultation these Councillors promised consultation.
Yet, without any consultation, Councillors voted unanimously for the zoning and remarkably all spoke of how great the zones were – considering how little they knew of the zones, both then and now, this was/is astounding.
Residents in the growth zones who bought the “certainty” spin are facing the harsh reality that the claims of “certainty” were not for them. Faced with this all Council has done is include a substandard report supporting the zones (in the Council Minutes) and embarking on another parkland makeover program that will cost squillions and not result in any parkland increase. Council, despite all evidence to the contrary has firmly planted its head in the bucket of sand labelled “not the due to zone implementation” (as if that’s an acceptable reason for doing nothing) and persists (which is has done since 2002 when high density growth areas were enshrined in the planning scheme) in ignoring the construction management plans and impacts of traffic (congestion and rat runs), parking, drainage, open space, neighbourhood character etc.
Increasingly, concerned residents are also appearing in the “most highly protected” NRZ. They too bought the initial spin and are now aware that the 2 dwellings per lot claim was flawed (due to subdivision) before it was even made. As the growth zones fill up (less than a decade at this rate) the NRZ has to shrink – the development push to shrink the NRZ started the day the zones were announced and is growing rapidly. The already felt, and ignored by Council, flow on impacts of traffic and parking are only adding to their unease.
How could Council have avoided or addressed this. Basically by doing it’s job.
. Providing the community with information and seeking community input – all documentation on community consultation recognises the significance of community consultation and the contribution it makes to successful decision making. Shame neither the Administration or Councillors of Glen Eira have ever bothered to read any of it. Even post implementation consultation would be beneficial – but nada, no way, zilch, zippo
. undertaking the detailed analysis that the “biggest change in planning in the history of Glen Eira” rightly deserved. Words/phrases like proactive, forward thinking, vision, best practice, planning, continuous improvement or even plain old basic good management do not apply to “a neutral and direct translation” of a planning scheme implemented in 2002.
.
November 17, 2014 at 10:13 AM
Well worth a read! From Bayside –
Recommendation
That Council:
1. writes to the Minister for Planning requesting that the Minister abandons draft Amendment
C125, terminates the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee process and relieves
the Bayside draft Amendment C125 Advisory Committee of its duties;
2. requests the Minister for Planning confirms that he does not wish to proceed with any further
application of the Residential Growth Zone within Bayside;
3. further requests that the Minister for Planning prepares to approve an amendment pursuant
to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 immediately following the state
election that introduces:
a. a minimum subdivision lot size of 400 square metres within the schedule to the
Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ);
b. ResCode variations within the schedule to the NRZ to provide for:
i. Increased private open space requirements for developments of more than one
dwelling as proposed by Amendment C106.
ii. Increased rear setback of 4 metres.
iii. Increased permeability requirement of 35%.
c. the changes proposed by Amendment C106 across the Local Planning Policy
Framework (LPPF) to incorporate the Housing Strategy; and
d. a maximum residential building height of 10 metres within General Residential Zone
Schedule 6 (GRZ6) for the residential component of the Black Rock Neighbourhood Activity Centre;4. immediately writes to all relevant local candidates in the upcoming election seeking:
a. their support not to proceed with draft Amendment C125 and the application of the
Residential Growth Zone; and
b. their support to introduce the changes to the Bayside Planning Scheme as specified at
part 4 of this resolution.
5. writes to all submitters to draft Amendment C125 advising of this resolution.
Source: http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/documents/governance/18_November_2014_Special_Meeting_of_Council_-_New_Residential_Zones.pdf
November 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM
That is why Glen Eira NRZ residents are selling off their overpriced properties and shifting to Bayside. It’s been happening for a decade.
November 17, 2014 at 4:07 PM
The collection of changes made to our Planning Scheme that have been imposed upon us are about creating “an environment for private sector investment” and the efficiency with which developers can reap profits. It is not about “clearer rules” [they’re as pathetic as ever], and the much-touted “certainty” focuses on the wrong things.
The various MACs have done what the government expected of them, but some are retrospectively attempting to disassociate themselves from the consequences. Prof Roz Hansen for example a week ago published a letter in The Age criticising the process and outcomes.
I’m not surprised that Council took the lazy route and endorsed uncritically Jeff Akehurst’s reports and recommendations. The euphemism “to be completed internally” essentially meant that council staff controlled the process without input from the community, and naturally focussed only on what they wanted the outcomes to be.
It is a depressing thought that the likely result from the State elections will be either more of the Illiberals and PlanMelbourne or the Labor shonks who gave us M2030 and M@5M. That just leaves the question of which subset of councillors will pose for photo opportunities at the next grand announcement from our Spring St Poobahs.