The Glen Eira Council approach –
Crs Okotel/Hyams
That a report be prepared detailing how the state government intends to review planning zones and how this might impact Glen Eira.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
The Bayside approach –
That Council:
- Notes the published advice of Mr Brian Tee, former Shadow Minister for Planning received 25 November 2014 on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, confirming it will review the new residential zones to stop inappropriate development;
- Writes to the Minister for Planning seeking a meeting to brief the Minister regarding its 18 November 2014 resolution, and obtain his support in approving an Amendment pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that introduces the changes to the Bayside Planning Scheme not approved as part of Amendment C106;
- Write to the Hon Sue Pennicuik MLC, Member for the Southern Metropolitan Region seeking the support of the Australian Greens; and
- Receives a report in March 2015 providing an update on the meeting with the Minister, and to consider a standard planning scheme amendment (C140) and resourcing implications, as resolved by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 25 November 2014.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Chalk and cheese the two resolutions. Status quo is the way the want to go in Glen Eira
February 10, 2015 at 12:21 PM
A review with full community input has to happen. Some of the minimal change areas may have to go in exchange for plenty more in housing diversity that should be protected and preserved – the photos in the last post support this.
February 10, 2015 at 5:03 PM
I can’t see Newton embracing any review. Changes mean that they got it wrong – something this lot never admit to.
February 10, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Note though that Bayside is seeking to use Ministerial discretion under s.20(4) to make unilateral changes to their Scheme. That’s what GECC did. Bayside Amendment C106 was not exhibited, but also wasn’t a major change as it essentially reapplied the conditions introduced by amendments such as C103 to the new residential zones.
Seeking to make additional changes via s.20(4) without strategic justification is however not to be encouraged. Maximum height in their GRZ zones is 11m, which astute developers will know means 4 storeys, not the 3 storeys Bayside wishes to publicize [4 x (2.4m + 0.3m) = 10.8m]. Bayside wishes to lower the maximum height for one GRZ in Black Rock to 10m, but hasn’t explained the difference in development outcomes it seeks for Black Rock vs any other GRZ in the municipality.
Another “feature” of Bayside’s Scheme is that balconies are explicitly listed as minor buildings and works and are permitted to intrude into setbacks, rendering setbacks almost pointless. That is not true of GEPS [other than for C60]. As we have recently learnt though, GECC has silently changed the interpretation of its scheme and now permits balconies to intrude, changing the effective envelope of a building to be something much larger. This is what developers call a “performance-based” system.
Something that Bayside does have in common with GECC is the tendency to use the word “committed” when they mean nothing stronger than “intention”. It boils down to the nebulous hope that a future Council, probably consisting of differerent councillors, will choose to do something to ameliorate the problems that current policies are predicted to create.
February 10, 2015 at 9:38 PM
We beg to differ with you Reprobate –
Amendment C106 was placed on exhibition for one month –
http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/about_the_council/media_release_ministerial_support.htm
It was also based on an updated housing strategy that had community consultation.
The draft was fully available and tabled at council meetings.
Amendment C103 was also made available for public comment. There were countless meetings over this –
http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/search_results.php?q=amendment+c103
Click to access Special_Council_Mtg_17_September_2012_-_Agenda_MACs.pdf
Click to access 27_August_2013_Item_10.16_DOC_13_102727__Bayside_Housing_Strategy_Amendment_C106_Housing_Strategy_Attachments_6_7_and__8.pdf
All of the above is the exact opposite of what Glen Eira Council did in relation to the introduction of the new zones. In particular –
No consultation and done in secrecy
Based on a housing strategy that dates back to the late nineties
Spurious claims about ‘in depth consultation’ in 2010