In August of this year, Minister Wynne wrote to councils asking for their ‘feedback’ on the new zones. Thus far, both Glen Eira and Bayside have published his letter as well as their individual responses. The differences between the two are literally staggering. Whilst Glen Eira’s is more of the same bunkum, stating how wonderful they are, Bayside at least seeks to address some of the issues. There are specific recommendations and noticeably, no real self-promotion. Glen Eira’s effort represents another instance of sheer arrogance. That council can even contemplate writing such drivel to a minister says a lot about the planning department, Magee who signed the letter (presumably on behalf of other councillors), and of course, how little concerned council is with the impact of their handiwork on residents.
We have uploaded both submissions (see below) and urge readers to compare. In summary –
- The first 4 pages of the Glen Eira version of reality are nothing more than regurgitating what a success they are, and how everything is the result of the building boom. Once on a good wicket, then stick to it, it seems. There is perhaps 1% of self promotion in Bayside’s version, but it is in context.
- Once again, the truth is distorted and inaccurate. On page 5 of the Glen Eira submission there is this comment – In the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, there is limited ability to customise the zone through a Schedule to allow for more than 2 dwellings on large lots such as those greater than 2,OOOm2 in area. Subdivision of the large lot is possible but subdivision does not enable the community to comment on a detailed development. As if council really cares what the community thinks, especially when their secret ‘negotiations’ with Guy, stated that the problem could be overcome by subdividing first! More relevant is the fact that the schedules provided the opportunity for councils to designate minimum lot sizes. Many have. Bayside is even now, with its Amendment C140 attempting to introduce a minimum lot size subdivision of 800 square metres. Furthermore, this entire sentence begs the question of what happens when one developer decides to go to VCAT and because his land may be 1200 square metres use the planning scheme clause that larger lot sizes in the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are to be evaluated against the General Residential Zone schedules!
- On ‘community response’ there is this wonderful statement – ‘Many have appreciated the certainty’. Evidence? Well a ‘group of residents’ in Elsternwick and the fact that land owners are ‘consolidating’ and selling their land together is supposed to be due to their desire to ‘increase property value’ and ‘development potential’. Not a word that people are getting out BECAUSE OF THE ZONES and what it is doing to their suburbs and local streets.
- We also get the ‘sting in the tail’ statement on the following page – just to remind the minister that possibly the community wants more than the untrue figure of 78% zoned as neighbourhood residential zone! Which would represent a real headache for any government! Pity that the statistic is so untrue!– ie They would like to see the proportion of land zoned Neighbourhood Residential increased from the present 78%.
- And just in case the minister wants to appease developers we also find – Developers continue to claim that the municipality has been ‘locked down’. They would like to see more areas zoned General Residential and Residential Growth
What is particularly galling for residents about this entire submission comes towards the end (page 7) where in the totally irrelevant points on Level Crossing Removals, we get a further inkling into Glen Eira’s pro-development, and more and more high rise philosophy –
This will make these centres more attractive as places to live and easier to move around.
They will be more attractive centres to develop.
The present residential zones framework (together with the Commercial Zone) is equipped to respond to this.
In summary, the submission is disgraceful, inadequate, self-promoting, irrelevant to what was asked, and totally dismissive of the problems which have already surfaced. We sincerely hope that Minister Wynne and his minders have a good laugh!
Here is the Bayside effort and HERE the Glen Eira one.
We urge readers to compare and contrast and remember!
Glen Eira Debates 
October 22, 2015 at 3:57 PM
Oh, Mr Magoo you’ve done it again, and on his letterhead as well, and he signed it, Newton and Burke would have laughed their silly heads off, it so funny, Magoo wouldn’t know if a tram was up him, until the the bell rang
October 23, 2015 at 9:17 AM
Magee has really lost the plot. Wakes up and says something one day and something else next day. Read Glen Eira leader of 14 & 21 October ’15 front page. Is he pulled aside for his consistency?
October 22, 2015 at 5:22 PM
Without doubt the best line in the entire GE submission – This (the new zones) also aligned with Sustainability objectives including provisions for canopy trees and measures to reduce stormwater run-off throughout most of our municipality.
This explains all the moonscaping no doubt and inattention to flooding issues. Nobel prize for fiction is warranted.
October 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM
your dead right Macca, “measures to reduce stormwater”
I have it in a nut-shell, there is so much crap in our stormwater washing in from Newton’s junk piles that he has reclassified our stormwater as no longer a liquid, but a solid.
And the virtual tree canopies, will keep his rotting piles of street garbage cool in the hot summer months
And Mr Magoo signed up to it, it’s a great show really
What force does it take to stop a council from working …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Answer = one Newton
October 22, 2015 at 6:28 PM
Good times to comes.
October 22, 2015 at 8:57 PM
All councils are on the nose but Bayside is sure doing more than Glen Eira can dream about. I honestly don’t know why we keep paying these people to do nothing or do stuff that is so poor.
October 22, 2015 at 10:19 PM
GECC’s response follows unofficial Council policy, which is not to the answer question and to supply untrustworthy statistics whose derivation is unknown or dubious. The one thing GECC got right is when it admitted it didn’t have a clue whether the new residential zones are working, but still insisted on blaming anybody and everybody other than itself for all outcomes under its Planning Scheme and policies.
October 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM
The only good thing to emerge from this is that our Council’s views have been publicly revealed. They are shocking and an indictment of Council, but at least they are in the public domain [albeit reluctantly on Council’s part].
As anybody who has done a comparison of the zones before and after the Liberal Government imposed their unilateral changes will know, there was and is no such thing as a neutral translation. It was never intended be neutral. RZMAC openly admitted it. Of course residents are critical of the shonks who have made all these changes without involving the community and who leveraged every devious trick available to them to exclude the public until it could be presented as a fait accompli. At least the Liberals lost government so there is some justice. But now we have Labor taking its turn and it’s every bit as nefarious.
We have a Council election in 2016 and I want to know which of our councillors supported the changes being made without community consultation and which councillors didn’t. Surely those councillors who believe it was the right thing to do to exclude the public will be only too happy to reveal why they supported the secrecy and why they believe Assembly of Councillors is the appropriate place to make decisions and why they believe thwarting transparency and accountability mechanisms of Local Government Act is appropriate.