Readers may remember that prior to the recent state election, Bayside was on the verge of having its RGZ areas removed from the municipality. With a change in government, and a new planning minister, Bayside is again moving towards improving amenity for their residents. All of this goes to show that amendments, changes, and preserving local amenity is possible for councils. Of course, there has to be the will to do so and to pursue these issues.
In the published agenda for their first council meeting of the year, Bayside is seeking a formal resolution to:
- Organise a meeting with the new planning minister
- Proceed with those aspects of Amendment C106 which were refused by Guy
Bayside is seeking, via this amendment to:
- Remove all areas zoned RGZ
- Have a minimum lot size of 400 square metres in its Residential zone
- Increase permeability to 35%
- Maximum of 10 metres height in GRZ6
- Increase private open space requirement according to number of bedrooms
For a full coverage of this amendment, see Agenda Item 10.3. Available at – http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/documents/Ordinary_Meeting_Agenda_27_January_2015_without_Confidential.pdf
All of the above makes us wonder what on earth our band of councillors are doing 18 months down the track and when the full disaster is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day.
In comparison to Bayside, we remind readers once again, of what Glen Eira underachieved and continues to underachieve when mirrored against the real gains of countless other municipalities – all of which we’ve highlighted over the past year.
- NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE (meaning that 487 Neerim Road can have subdivisions of 199 square metres)
- 3 GRZ SCHEDULES (in reality only 2 applying widely)
- GRZ zones where ‘one size fits all’ of 10.5 metre height
- Permeability of 20% in housing diversity, and 25% in minimal change
- Open space again, ‘one size fits all’, regardless of numbers of rooms, size, etc.
- Residential Growth Zones in narrow, local streets (Bent, Mavho, Loranne,Belsize, etc. etc.)
Glen Eira Debates 
January 23, 2015 at 1:07 PM
Wynne’s decision on this will be telling. The post is dead right too on what GE hasn’t done.
January 23, 2015 at 4:04 PM
I pay rates in both Glen Eira and Bayside. Bayside has its own issues around lack of consistency, inadequate decision criteria, weak or non-existent structure plans. It also has policies and related documents that are rarely visited and have been allowed to atrophy. Bayside Amendment C106 was, and remains, inconsistent with its Structure Plans and Housing Strategy, and it has decided to surround land zoned PPRZ with buildings up to 12m high in GRZ2. It does however attempt to exculpate itself, identifying the ex-Planning Minister Matthew Guy as the reason for these decisions, and he of course imposed the changes without community consultation. I hope his role as Liberal Leader keeps his party out of office indefinitely.
January 26, 2015 at 9:49 AM
Off topic: while doing some research concerning Bayside I came across two documents of talks given by Helen Gibson [Deputy President VCAT, and head of its Planning and Environment List]. They give some insight into both the person and the workings of VCAT.
Click to access 8.pdf
Click to access Helen-Gibson.pdf
I first encountered Helen at a VCAT “stakeholder” meeting, where she told the assembled throng without a hint of irony that there was no evidence of corruption [in Planning] in Victoria. To this day Victorian developers can make political donations [often secretly] to purchase favour. She was also responsible for the decision to impose the “Spotlight” Centre on Carnegie without adequate traffic management plans or government investment to ameliorate the consequences. She was dismissive of Council policy concerning linking Arawatta St with Dandenong Rd, a practice VCAT later replicated on the other side of Koornang Rd concerning Egan St.
In the “Classic VCAT Cases” article, there were several things that concerned me. The idea that a member of the planning industry should be able to override Council policy and decisions with no quality control, with few decision guidelines that actually provide guidance, with nothing to regulate the weights attached to different criteria, and that political decisions should be made by members of the planning industry so unrepresentative of the people of Victoria and unaccountable to them, doesn’t sit easily with me.
Anyway it appears in VCAT’s view that there is such a thing as “net community benefit” that can be assessed by VCAT Members and that’s why it doesn’t support the amenity “standards” in planning schemes for the areas being targetted for higher-density development.