Second reading
MrWYNNE (Minister for Planning)—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Speech as follows incorporated into Hansard under sessional orders:
Victoria’s planning system encourages community participation in decision-making. This is especially true of the planning permit process. The community enjoys broad rights in the permit process to consider and object to proposals and to seek review of decisions through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Community participation has many benefits. It improves the decision-making process and often leads to better planning results. Objections can provide important insights into the potential effects of a proposal, not just on those who live or work nearby but also on the wider community. In the right circumstances, the number of objectors to a proposal can also provide such insights.
This bill amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to ensure the extent of community objection to planning proposals is considered. It does this by requiring the two key decision-makers in the permit process—responsible authorities and VCAT—to have regard, where appropriate, to the number of objectors when considering whether a proposal may have a significant social effect.
This new requirement must be considered before a decision or determination is made, together with other matters that must be considered under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, such as the objectives of the act, the planning scheme, and any significant economic and environmental effects that the proposal may have.
The bill amends two key provisions in the Planning and Environment Act 1987: sections 60 and 84B. Section 60(1) sets out matters a responsible authority must consider before deciding on a permit application. Section 84B sets out an equivalent set of matters that VCAT must consider. The bill inserts the new requirement in both sections to promote consistent decision-making.
Decision-makers must already consider whether a use or development may have a significant social effect. Social effects are not defined in the act but may include matters such as:
- services.
- access to social and community facilities.
- choice in housing, shopping, recreational and leisure services.
- community safety and amenity.
- the needs of particular groups in the community, such as the aged.
This bill makes it clear that the number of objectors may be a relevant fact that ought to be considered in this assessment.
Whether it is appropriate for the number of objectors to be taken into account in a particular case is a matter for the decision-maker. In making a decision about whether to take into account the number of objectors, the decision-maker may be influenced by:
- what the objectors have said in their written objection about the proposed use or development.
- whether the issues raised in the objections are relevant planning considerations and relate to the reasons why the proposal requires a permit.
- whether the issues raised in the objections point to a significant social effect on the community which is supported by evidence.
It will be for the responsible authority and VCAT to determine this based on the particular circumstances of the case.
The number of objectors alone will not establish that there is a significant social effect. However, the number of objectors may be indicative of the scale of a social effect on the community, the presence of a specific social need in the community that may be affected, or the social significance of a site to the community
The new requirement is likely to be particularly relevant where a proposal may reduce access to or enjoyment of community facilities or services or adversely affect public health and safety. The number of objectors, and the consistency of views expressed by objectors, may demonstrate that the community or a section of the community may be significantly affected.
This bill does not seek to reduce the weight given to the views of a single objector or a small number of objectors. It also does not seek to promote the consideration of irrelevant matters in decision-making. As is the case now, an objector will need to put their concerns in writing and state how they would be affected by the grant of a permit. The relevance of the issues raised will continue to be an overriding consideration in the assessment of all objections. It is the intention of the bill that decision-makers will ensure that the objections are a genuine reflection of an anticipated significant social effect that is supported by evidence, rather than simply the views of a number of objectors.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned on motion of Mr PESUTTO (Hawthorn).
+++++++++
Bentleigh electorate
Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh)—(Question 259) My question is to the Minister for Planning. I ask the minister if he will visit Bentleigh to explain the changes the government is making to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). For two years Glen Eira City Council has been implementing Matthew Guy’s residential zones, which have seen Californian bungalows in quiet residential streets make way for four-storey apartment buildings.
Councillors often oppose these individual applications and send them off to VCAT. The Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Bill 2015 means VCAT can now recognise the social impacts a future development may have. Previously VCAT had no mechanism to recognise community concerns about development proposals. This change means the community’s voice will be given consideration in VCAT decisions. The government will also review the former Minister for Planning’s residential zones later this year. I ask the minister to visit my electorate and meet with interested local residents about these issues.
+++++++++
Bentleigh level crossing
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan)—While the announcement by Premier Andrews to remove the Centre Road, Bentleigh, level crossing is welcomed, it will be a hollow promise until proper funding has been allocated. While the Premier may have promised to remove the Centre Road crossing, the $2.5 billion allocated to crossing removals does not exist, as it is dependent upon the sale of the port of Melbourne.
This morning we heard the government making more announcements about the removal of level crossings on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, with vague dates and what appears to be a rushed and panicked process so that it can meet its election promise of removing 50 level crossings. But questions remain about how this will be paid for and how the disruption it will cause will be managed. In Bentleigh the public is still unaware of when construction on the Centre Road level crossing will begin, how long construction will take and what impact the construction work will have.
The success of the traders on Centre Road is contingent on traffic flows and the availability of parking, yet there have been no community forums to discuss these issues. Premier Daniel Andrews has not released a credible plan to minimise interruptions caused by the crossing removal. Questions such as whether the car park adjacent to the station will be closed during the construction phase and what transport arrangements will be in place once the line is closed need to be answered. The people of Bentleigh deserve better than this, and all Victorians need to understand how these level crossings will be paid for. The budget papers clearly state that all capital funding for level crossing removals beyond 1 July 2015 is to be confirmed and highlight that the only level crossings which have been actually funded are those that were funded by the coalition.
May 28, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Minister Wynne sounds as out of touch with people as Guy did. The system is not geared to encouraging community participation. If he was genuine in seeking reform then the first thing he should be doing is reducing the fees payable by objectors. For large multi million developments objectors are at a distinct disadvantage. There are many other changes that need to happen. I’m merely annoyed at the glibness of his remarks and their mismatch with what happens.
May 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM
This will be too little too late for my pocket of Bentleigh East, where we have apartment buildings galore going up on Centre Road.
We also have a 3 storey monster going up on Heather Street which was unsuccessfully taken to VCAT (surprise, surprise). There is also another one going up just behind this at 14 Laurel Street which was also taken to VCAT by the developer after council sliced off the 3rd floor and advised it didn’t meet the street character. Guess what the outcome of this objection was?
Now another yellow sign has sprouted behind me at 8 Daphne Street for a 3 storey, 13 dwellings with basement car park.
No matter how much residents object, it just falls on deaf ears. Money talks louder.
May 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Not only money but idiots in council who decide that vast swathes of Bentleigh East can have three stories everywhere and it is not a major activity centre even. Wait til you get 5000 at Virginia Park.
May 28, 2015 at 1:35 PM
Whoever is advising Staikos should be looking for a new job. Councillors do not “often oppose” applications. The reverse is true. They grant permits to practically everything that comes before them at council meetings and even more so if the officers recommend a permit. The times when they have gone against officer recommendations could be counted on one hand like the heritage Seaview and Esakoff owned unit – and that is not a conflict of interest or when Lipshutz’s mate hands out his how-to-vote cards and then gets his permit.That too is no conflict of interest.
May 28, 2015 at 2:37 PM
Off topic, but we ask readers to compare how Glen Eira council has handled the ABC studios land, plus the Virginia Estate proposals, with what Bayside is doing. A reminder that with the Virginia Park amendment council is ‘happy’ to accept a 20 metre wide link between the park and Marlborough Reserve. On trees? Well they don’t even get a mention!
See: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/bayside-council-installs-planning-zones-and-protects-parkland-at-highett-csiro-site/story-fngnvli9-1227372704158
May 28, 2015 at 5:21 PM
The ABC site will have a very high building on it some day. It will be equal to the height of the antenna that is currently on the site. Probably higher.
May 28, 2015 at 3:36 PM
OK, Labor’s election promises have turned to dust but don’t let that obscure the fact that in Glen Eira the real culprit is Council. A succession of Councillors since 2002 have consistently abrogated their legal responsibility and delegated more and more matters to the Administration. The end result within Glen Eira is that it doesn’t have structure plans, overlays or any other planning tools (all of which are utilised by other Councils) to ensure that cummulative impact of development is considered – instead in Glen Eira each and every development considered in isolation.
Fine that Cr. Sounness is now sounding the alarm bells that Council doesn’t have the necessary planning tools available but where was this concern expressed when he voted for Council ramming through the new zones or when Council recently voted to wait and see rather than start implementing the tools that would allow them to start to address the over development issues.
May 28, 2015 at 7:19 PM
Featured below are extracts from today’s Victorian Government Gazette. Please note carefully what Bayside is doing in regard to development contributions levy (Glen Eira has no such levy in its scheme!).
Planning and Environment Act 1987
BAYSIDE PLANNING SCHEME
Notice of Preparation of Amendment
Amendment C139
The Bayside City Council has prepared Amendment C139 to the Bayside Planning Scheme.
The Amendment affects all land within the Bayside municipality.
The Amendment proposes to implement the Bayside Drainage Development Contributions Plan (DCP). The Plan requires proponents of new development to pay a levy to contribute toward the cost of upgrading Bayside’s drainage network to cater for increased development.
How much will proponents have to pay?
$2000 for each new ground floor dwelling;
$1000 for each new flat or upper floor dwelling;
$520 for each 100 square metres of gross building floor area or per 100 square metres of site area, whichever is the lesser, for new commercial development on land zoned Commercial;
$2000 per 600 square metres of site area for new non-residential development on land zoned Residential
BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME
Notice of Approval of Amendment
Amendment C93
The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C93 to the Banyule Planning Scheme.
The Amendment comes into operation on the date this notice is published in the Government Gazette.
The Amendment gives statutory effect to the ‘Ivanhoe Structure Plan, 2012 (Revised December 2014)’ by rezoning land, amending Clauses 21.08 and 21.09, and amending Schedules 11 and 12 to Clause 43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) to permanently implement design controls.
PORT PHILLIP PLANNING SCHEME
Notice of Approval of Amendment
Amendment C104
The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C104 to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
The Amendment comes into operation on the date this notice is published in the Government Gazette.
The Amendment seeks to rezone the land 1–7 Waterfront Place, Port Melbourne, from Comprehensive Development Zone to Mixed Use Zone and introduce built-form controls, including a Design and Development Overlay
May 28, 2015 at 8:02 PM
Council stated that they had around 1700 new dwellings last year. For the sake of argument, let’s say that at least 1300 hundred of these would be an upper floor dwelling as said in the amendment. That’s well over a million dollars on just this aspect alone that Newton is willing to forego. He would prefer that ratepayers rather than developers fund this necessity through continued rate increases and less services elsewhere. Unbelievable stewardship is all I can say.
May 28, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Ábsolutely astounding that out erstwhile Councillors decided to abolish the Development Contribution Levy because it cost more to collect the levy that the revenue raised. Yet here is Bayside able to collect heaps – apply there $2000 per ground floor dwelling and $1000 per upper floor dwelling on any multi unit, multi storey residential development as today.
Adds fuel to the recent discussions on the amount of Glen Eira’s budget that is paid to staff while at the same time raising serious questions as to the quality of their work.
May 28, 2015 at 9:38 PM
Good to see what’s going on in other places. Only Glen Eira sits on its bum and does nothing like introduce overlays and levies.
May 29, 2015 at 6:32 AM
Newton wants to say that Glen Eira has the lowest rates. This bloke just doesn’t get it.
May 28, 2015 at 11:01 PM
Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, C84 removed a DCPO [for drainage] that had expired from the planning scheme. There was no attempt to install a new one in its place. Cr Hyams argued that the net revenue would be negligible, and an officer made the unsubstantiated claim that the Minister was unlikely to approve “fees that are significantly higher”. Despite this, GECC claims in its Municipal Strategic Statement that it has a strategy of investigating additional development contribution mechanisms. It’s tagged as “Future Strategic Work” though, and over a decade later we’re still waiting.