Crs Lobo/Delahunty
That a report be prepared outlining the number of new dwellings approved in the General Residential Zones and Residential Growth Zones. This report also to include the number of dwellings pending approval since they were created by the previous government. That the report show this information broken down by location. That the report also show a comparison to a previous relevant period.
The MOTION was put and CARRIED unanimously.
LOBO: said that the report is ‘self explanatory’ and he is ‘looking forward to the report’.
DELAHUNTY: said council could ‘make more use of the data’ and see the ‘comparative period’.
HYAMS: cautioned against ‘misinterpreting the information’ because if there is ‘a large number of dwellings being approved in certain areas’ then this isn’t ‘the result of any one factor’. Also ‘more buildings are being approved all over Melbourne’.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 27, 2015 at 10:51 AM
One small step for transparency – maybe. I would have liked to see the report include information on what is happening in the neighbourhood residential zones as well and the commercial sites.
February 27, 2015 at 12:44 PM
Yes, a good step but only if the data is presented in an objective, unbiased fashion. Hyams misgivings make me suspicious right off.
February 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM
Figures are now out for the number of planning permits issued in January – the traditional slow month. Another 205 new dwelling permits added for this month alone. That makes the figure for the last three months at 922 new dwellings. The antiquated planning scheme still talks about 600 new dwellings per year. At this rate the number of new dwellings per year will be close to 4000!
PS: oops, we’ve just noticed a typo. The total should be 722 in the past 3 months.
February 27, 2015 at 6:05 PM
Jamie’s looking a wee bet nervous about this report, it will be interesting to see how they try to rig the data
February 27, 2015 at 6:41 PM
Have they outlined what actions will be taken once this report has been produced?
February 27, 2015 at 6:45 PM
This is only a ‘request for a report’. No further action is specified in the wording of the request. What usually happens is that the report includes the officer recommendation to ‘note the report’. It is up to councillors to vary, amend, or move any motion to initiate ‘action’. They can simply resolve to ‘note the report’ or as just stated, to move and pass some resolution that will take the matter further.
February 28, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Residents who attended last Tuesday’s council meeting were appalled to hear Lypshut and the Mayor Jim treating Cr Lobo in undermining way.
February 27, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Encouraging signs from Crs Lobo and Delahunty. Kudos!
March 3, 2015 at 11:18 AM
This report sounds dodgy—not designed to provide information to aid decision-making. Some councillors and members of staff purporting to represent “Council” told the Minister we had 85 years’ supply “based on current housing construction”, but we don’t know how that number was derived, whether it includes the new defacto residential zone C1Z, or what amenity standards are to be trashed to achieve it.
The very fact that some councillors need to ask for this report is an admission that Council has failed to put in place comprehensive regular reporting about its Scheme. The DSE/DPCD/DTPLI/DEWLP Activity reports are inadequate, just as their “strategic planning” in naming entire suburbs as “Major Activity Centres” [M2030] or as “Activity Centres” [Plan Melbourne] was inept. The Scheme identifies areas requiring “further strategic work”, which Council simply has not done. Council hasn’t had the courage to explain why it doesn’t support the amenity standards in s.55 anywhere other than in NRZ.
Even NRZ isn’t safe, as our duplicitous Council and officers have deliberately inserted enough policy elements to “justify” rezoning any land in NRZ to GRZ or to subdivide land into lots smaller than 300sqm should a developer ask.
And then we get absurd statements from ex-Mayor Hyams about C1Z: “But it’s not as if you will get a six-storey building in a row of shops”. So of course he voted for a six-storey building in a row of shops. Proximity to residential zones is supposed to be part of the decision criteria for C1Z, but Council’s attitude is that if you’re stupid enough to live near a Commercial Zone then you’re not entitled to have your amenity protected.