On the 25th February 2015, both sides of politics passed this motion in parliament.
That in accordance with standing order 11.01, there be tabled in the Council, by 12 noon on Wednesday, 11 March 2015, a copy of the report prepared for the Minister for Planning by the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee concerning draft amendment C125 relating to the city of Bayside.
Amendment C125 relates in part to Bayside’s attempt to basically overturn the Residential Growth Zones in its municipality. We will refrain from commenting on the performance of this Standing Advisory Committee thus far and its previous recommendations concerning Kingston, Moreland, Moonee Valley and so on. What is of interest in the debate are the comments representing all sides of politics.
We also suggest that when reading the following, readers keep in mind what occurred in Glen Eira – that is: secrecy, no consultation, and deliberate obfuscation in response to various public questions.
MR DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan)…… This is about the shape of our suburbs. This about residential amenity. I put on record as a general principle my belief that there is great scope for transit-orientated developments with a focus on higher density in and around transport nodes, but it must be done in a way that brings the community with the proposals. It needs to have full community consultation, and councils and the community need to be working in harmony to see developments like that accepted and brought forward. They must be designed in a way that is sympathetic to the community.
This motion is a narrow one. It seeks to make public that report by the panel. I can indicate that the opposition will make some further decisions when we see that report, but it is clear that amendment C125 and the proposals around it need some significant further work. The panel report is a key document that should be in the public domain to inform public debate, and for that reason this motion is in the public interest.
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan)—In short, the Greens certainly support this motion. We support open and transparent government and of course we support the release of the planning panel report in relation to amendment C125 to the Bayside planning scheme. What is important in relation to this is what the community thinks about the nature and shape of their suburbs. It involves the character, amenity and built form of the area, and certainly planning scheme amendments provide ample opportunity for those matters to be picked up through design and development overlays and schedules attached to the planning scheme.
The planning panel report will provide an opportunity to see how those consultations went. It will be interesting to understand the length and breadth of the contributions and how many people had an opportunity to participate. The reality is that this is about the shape and nature of our suburbs and of Melbourne, so it is important that communities share that journey when we are talking about matters as important as planning scheme amendments and the difference between general residential zones and residential growth zones. Certainly the Greens support the release of this planning panel report, and we look forward to seeing what is contained within it.
Mr SOMYUREK (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade)—The Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee has prepared its report on amendment C125 to the Bayside planning scheme and has submitted it to the department for assessment. The Minister for Planning will shortly be briefed on the recommendations of the independent committee for his review. Once a decision has been made by the Minister for Planning the report will be released. It is in no-one’s interests to prolong the debate, and the Minister for Planning requires suitable time to assess the independent committee’s recommendations without interference. If the committee report is released prior to a decision being made, proponents and the community will continue to make submissions on the substantive matter and the panel report. This does not add to the quality or timeliness of the decision-making.
There is a clear and transparent process for consideration of these proposed amendments, and it is important that this process is honoured. While it is at the minister’s discretion as to whether to release the committee report, I can confirm that the minister will release the report once he has been briefed and a decision has been made.
This government is committed to clear and transparent decision-making that takes into account the views of the community. We were very concerned about the mismanagement of the process for the rollout of the new zones and will be undertaking a full review.
Motion agreed to.
PS: From this week’s Leader ‘Letter to the Editor’.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 4, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Everyone supports community consultation. That’s been part of Green policy for yonks. In 2013 Pilling was in name at least still a Green. So is Sounness. Okotel reckons she was in favour of consultation, so does Lobo. Delahunty reckons she was all for it first off. That makes 5 councillors the necessary majority who could have got consultation going if they were fair dinkum and had enough guts and not let the rest carry on like asio.
March 4, 2015 at 2:14 PM
Both residents in their letters make extremely good points. Ms Hocking appeal to “acknowledge existing residents” is precisely what this Council did not do at any stage – whether that is in 2013, 2010 and even in 2002. The only difference in these years was that the latest episode was entirely decided in camera. That is unforgivable. Mr Flitman in turn questions how streets hundreds of metres away from any station or major road can be the target for major developments of countless apartments. Drawing lines on a map without sufficient justification is never commensurate with efficient planning and made even worse when residents are kept out of the process entirely and these zones are imposed upon them.
March 4, 2015 at 2:29 PM
The previous government insisted on at least 3% of residentially-zoned land being rezoned RGZ. It has now been voted out of office after a single term. Of course before that Labor was responsible for the abysmal Melbourne 2030. Neither major party has been open or transparent about planning decisions.
Malcolm Flitman in his letter makes a comment that “Glen Eira hands down judgements based on adherence to ResCode”, but in fact part of the problem is that GECC does NOT adhere to ResCode. It freely waives compliance with ResCode when a developer complains that they can’t make as much money if they have to comply. Further, it doesn’t do the longer-term strategic planning required to ensure that the cumulative impact will be acceptable and that the funding required for infrastructure to support the expanded population in the new ghettos will be available.
The situation is crazy. Governments don’t want to borrow money to fund infrastructure because they don’t believe the increase in population will cover the costs. The population increase is driven by Federal policies, and they don’t believe in urban rail or public transport generally. VCAT doesn’t believe in the amenity standards in Planning Schemes. Developers don’t believe in contributing to the new infrastructure their developments demand. The principles of housing diversity have been abandoned, replaced by row after row of 1- and 2-bedroom units with poor amenity, such as tiny open space. Just who is it that is making money out of this mess?
March 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM
Basing a nation’s economy on the building industry is madness.
March 4, 2015 at 2:33 PM
Pilling turned, he is completely anti resident since he went over to the Liberal party. Lipshutz is more Green than Pilling ever was.
March 5, 2015 at 8:36 PM
Off topic – but I saw in the Leader advertising for a proposed park at the intersection of Mile End and Mimosa Road in Carnegie, which would involve acquisition of two houses and closure ofMile End Road. The irony is that immediately adjacent is the site of an old scout hall that Council sold off a number of years ago!
March 5, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Nothing unusual in this. Long term planning is beyond council. They had a public acquisition overlay on a property in Gardenvale for about 15 years. Took it off for about 6 years and have recently put it back on. Flip flop, flip flop with everything and wasting money in the process. Anyway, I wouldn’t hold my breath about these two properties. It will be years before anything happens.