Featured below are quotes from various VCAT decisions of the past year relating to applications in ‘housing diversity’ areas. They illustrate again the shortcomings of the current planning scheme and its lack of adequate safeguards for residents in these areas.
There is no local planning policy that addresses neighbourhood character within the housing diversity areas. (The Town Hall Consulting Group Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 1465 (27 November 2014)
I acknowledge the exclusion of housing diversity areas from application of neighbourhood character policy in recognition of the expected change in these areas…….
Each of these aspirations in the purpose of the General Residential Zone need to be balanced with the existing neighbourhood character as there is no neighbourhood character planning policy applicable to this area in the planning scheme. Therefore, the purpose about implementing neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines is not relevant in this case. (Krejany v Glen Eira CC [2015] VCAT 66 (22 January 2015)
The section for Carnegie in Clause 22.05 divides the village into eight precincts and provides policy for each. The review site and land to the north, east and west of the site is in Precinct 8. It also applies to a large area of land on the eastern and southern sides of the village. Compared with the statements for other precincts, the three given for Precinct 8 are not very helpful. One applies to a specific site in Neerim Road, and the other two make reference to encouraging a mix of density and housing types to accommodate different household types, especially the elderly and encouraging managed change of the neighbourhood character (Steller Pty Ltd v Glen Eira CC [2014] VCAT 653 (3 June 2014)
Glen Eira Debates 
March 1, 2015 at 7:20 PM
The quotes make it pretty difficult to argue about neighbourhood character when no such policy exists and housing diversity is changing every five minutes with the rate of new buildings. Another bonus from council to developers.
March 2, 2015 at 8:07 AM
I thought it was folly to try and make the contemporary look or match the past. Hence neighbourhood character argument, which is over, finished, gone.
If you look back a just a decades or so when building a few, or more double story town houses on a residential block was all the rage.
Architects and builders constructed all those mock style homes with ridiculously sallow gables decorated with undersized timber crudely nailed to the face of the brickwork. More than likely a very strange choices in brick colour. With useless portico’s over the front entrances, supported by skinny looking posts etc, all finished off with rolla-door and a high picket fence.
These homes as they were then, and still are, and always will be, are the worse of both worlds, neither convincingly old or credibly modern. They will never have a place of time or a spirit of mind other than being a dreadful ugly follies.
Neighbourhood character went out the back door at a 100 k an hour, because it delivered us the worse architecture outside of the Russian Federation, and that famous cul-de-sac Ramsay Street.
I cannot image what could be done today to add neighbourhood character to what’s happening in our streets, apart from not not building anything at all. Which is worth the consideration of debate.
March 2, 2015 at 10:02 AM
Quote 3 hits the nail on the head. No preferred character exists and when council wants change and one development becomes the precedent there’s no point in talking about existing character. For all the guff about neighborhood character stuff for the growth zones it boils down to zero effect in 99% of cases if theres already a development gone up.