Item 9.13 – Neighbourhood Character
COMMENT
Here was the golden opportunity to achieve something positive for residents – to start the process of introducing those ‘tools’ that would go some way to ameliorating the damage that has already been done in neighbourhoods, as well as putting the brakes on further deterioration of amenity.
Instead we witness 9 councillors who have once again decided to serve the pro-development agenda rather than serving the best interests of residents. As with so many other contentious issues, the ‘answer’ was to do nothing – to ask for another report in 12 months time whilst Rome is burning at ever faster and faster rates. And when such a report does eventually surface, we are under no illusion that it will provide the catalyst for any action that does not benefit developers!
To cave-in, to basically whimp it is, in our view, unconscionable. Residents deserve a lot better than councillors who repeatedly fail to initiate any action that would serve the interests of their constituents.
Readers should note:
- the ‘discussion’ took less than 5 minutes
- the ‘silence’ of all other councillors apart from the mover and seconder
- not one single comment on the ‘adequacy’ of the tabled report
+++++++
Sounness moved to accept with the additions of: that ‘tools’ such as Urban Design frameworks have ‘less weight’ than statutary guidelines especially if applications end up at VCAT. A report be provided in ’12 months time’ on the ‘effectiveness’ of planning tools for ‘urban character’; the report also look at ‘car parking’ in Glen Eira’s Residential Growth Zones. Delahunty seconded.
SOUNNESS: said that he asked for the report because there were ‘some issues’ where the community ‘feels’ that with the new zones, especially in ‘transition’ areas, that people are concerned about what is happening. Stated that ‘council has an obligation to represent residents now’ and those residents who will be living in the area ‘in the future’. Report is on how the ‘tools we’ve got’ relate to ‘neighbourhood character’. Said that he had ‘asked around’ what council can do ‘to protect neighbourhood character’. The responses were basically that ‘the whole planning system should be changed’ but ‘this doesn’t really help’. The ‘advice’ that councillors have received is that the tools already in place are used ‘judiciously’ and even though ‘they might not satisfy everyone’s needs’ there are also the ‘future needs’ that have to be considered. Said he was enquiring about some of the clauses he had heard mentioned ‘around the place’ and that’s why he’s asked for the ’12 months time’ report. He knew that Bayside, Stonnington and Boroondara have ‘done certain things’ but when he’s talked with councillors there, they wish for ‘certain things that we’ve got’. So council can ‘review’ things in the future, especially when the Local Government Act is amended and other legislation. There ‘will be more opportunities for council and councillors’ to ‘communicate to the community what’s going to be happening’.
DELAHUNTY: claimed that what Sounness is ‘trying to achieve’ is to discover ‘why there is such a gap’ between what is ‘available to us’ and what ‘other councils are doing’. The motions ‘seeks to clarify’ this a ‘bit more’. There are applications in Glen Huntly Road for multi storey so when there is talk about ‘preferred character’ and ‘no doubt’ the report will say that this is ‘sympathetic to the emerging character’ but this becomes ‘the emerging character’ if it gets through. ‘This is incredibly subjective’.
MOTION PUT – carried unanimously
PS: another example of ‘quality control’ and ratepayers’ dollars at work?
May 20, 2015 at 10:17 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with the criticisms levelled in the post. Asking for another report twelve months on is not the message that would fill residents with confidence that councillors are acting in their best interests. Everyone knows that parking is a serious problem so waiting another 12 months for a report is a slap in the face for those residents living in quiet local streets that have been inundated with more and more traffic and parking problems.
Personally, I would be far more impressed with the integrity of these people, if they came straight out and honestly declared that they intend to do nothing and that they are captive to the autocratic control of officers who do not want anyone or anything to rock the boat that they have settled into.
May 20, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Delahunty provides the best reason why action is needed. If she can’t see it then more fool her. If she can then it’s even worse.
May 20, 2015 at 1:24 PM
Resident are more concerned about their think a brick councillors, asking for reports and being fobbed off with bull. A complete bunch of gut-less no-hopers.
May 20, 2015 at 1:28 PM
Can’t believe they’ve had the gall to sidestep again and hope that everyone forgets about it. Useless bunch of no hopers ever who take the money and run for cover.
May 20, 2015 at 2:47 PM
No one has ever challenged why Glen Eira refuses to introduce the basics like structure plans and urban design frameworks for activity centres in particular. Everyting is brushed aside with the cop out that these are policies and that vcat can ignore them. If there is no merit to any of these tools, then I would want to know why other councils insist on incorporating them into their planning schemes and why in the process they are prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars on the work required to get them into their planning schemes. They can’t all be mugs. That leaves the question of whether or not Glen Eira is the only mug in the state and why they are so kind to developers.
May 20, 2015 at 3:26 PM
This comment prompted us to complete a very cursory search of VCAT. The findings (cited below) show that VCAT members DO place significance on structure planning and/or Urban Design Frameworks. In fact, the last extract from the list shows what can happen without such ‘policies’. Also, the Stonnington amendment is awaiting approval by the minister and it should also be noted that they didn’t blindly accept the Panel’s recommendations. Stonnington is insisting on achieving far more for their residents!
“Amendment C173 was placed on public exhibition in January and February 2013. It has been reviewed by a planning panel that has provided comment on its provisions and it is before the Minister for approval. It is accompanied by an Urban Design Framework (UDF) that has been adopted by Council, and to which I must have regard. Amendment C173 and the UDF together provide a planning policy framework that clarifies the appropriate height, scale and massing of buildings in this area designated for substantial change that also adjoins a sensitive residential precinct within a Heritage Overlay. (Pepi v Stonnington CC [2015] VCAT 574 (30 April 2015)
Clause 22.10 addresses housing provision. It is policy that if an approved structure plan or urban design framework exists for an activity centre, then the location and design of high and medium density housing be guided by the plan or framework (no permit granted) Glengollan Village Ltd v Knox CC [2015] VCAT 563 (30 April 2015)
I find that the built form response has not had sufficient regard to the site’s context and the future planning for the activity centre encompassed in the Pakenham Town Centre Urban Design Framework 2004.( Ambulance Victoria v Cardinia SC [2014] VCAT 1285 (15 October 2014)
There was no structure plan or urban design framework for the small destination centre. A 2009 adopted policy and reference document in the Scheme described the role of the small destination centre as changing over time with “intensive” housing to be encouraged.( Mein v Maribyrnong CC [2014] VCAT 1245 (8 October 2014)”
So much for the propaganda regarding VCAT. Without policies, without structure planning, without parking precinct plans, without urban design frameworks, and without the will to achieve better outcomes, Glen Eira will remain a developer’s paradise. The ‘fault’ does not lie in the stars – it lies with councillors!
May 20, 2015 at 3:02 PM
Another instance of Councillors not representing residents, questioning officers reports or bothering to do some of their own research.
Couple of interesting things about NCO’s & DDO’s (Neighbourhood Character Overlay and Design Development Overlay) and Council’s performance.
NCO’s & DDO’s, rather than Significant Character Area (SCA) policies were recommended to Council, by an Independent Planning Panel, as being the best planning tool available to define desired future development outcomes way back in 2002 – when the Housing Diversity/Minimal Change Policy was introduced. But the Administration got Councillors to ignore that recommendation – cheaper and easier to change a toothless policy than amend the planning scheme (which is where the teeth are) .
Fast forward to 2008 and again an Independent Planning Panel made the same recommendation which again the Administration again got Councillors to ignore. The Significant Character Area policies were retained.
Another fast forward to 2012 and guess what!!! – the deficiencies in the Significant Character Area policies are recognised and Council implemented the “new” (ie. new to Glen Eira, not the rest of the Metro Melbourne) planning tool of the NCO and DDO ten years after the initial recommendation. Hence those SCA’s that hadn’t been ravaged over time were replaced with either an NCO or DDO, while those SCA’s ravaged beyond repair were placed upon the sacrifical development altar. More NCO’s and DDO’s were supposedly in the pipeline.
Zip along to May, 2015 – few additional NCO’s and DDO’s have been implemented and those that have do not apply to the former Housing Diversity areas (now known as the Growth Zones). In the Growth Zones the developers, not the residents, are still deciding the character. No doubt Council will never admit that these overlays could and should have been implemented sometime during the preceeding 13 years – instead, while dragging Council will continue to drag it feet (ie. let’s wait and see) and will blame the length of time it takes to introduce a Planning Scheme Amendment.
May 20, 2015 at 7:17 PM
Thank you for this history. I was not aware of it and it is a terrible story of neglect and I reckon incompetence and shirking away from doing any proper planning.
May 21, 2015 at 6:32 AM
As for the time it takes to get an amendment, Council will not only blame slow government processes but will also proudly add that it’s own outstanding community consultation processes also adds a significant time element. Yet, the increasing number of residents who attend community consultations, be they on a policy (eg. community plan, open space strategy) or planning permit conferences, are well aware of how pointless it is to attend – the decisions have already been made and rather than serving as means for encouraging community input and participation they serve only to satisfy legal requirements of having a community consultation..
May 20, 2015 at 8:31 PM
noticed an item in the paper today an item that MRC is providing 1500 car parks to train users at Sandown Park. Does this mean a deal with the govt so they can keep control of the middle of Caulfield?
May 21, 2015 at 11:25 AM
One hand washes the other and together they wash the face.
May 21, 2015 at 9:07 AM
Sounness has proven that he is a clown; he is in a wrong profession. Why did this man ask for a report and did not lobby it with other councillors? When will he and others ever care for residents?