PREFERRED CHARACTER STATEMENTS
Part of any planning scheme review is the imperative to locate any gaps or deficiencies in the scheme and to plug such holes. Councils generally approach this task by diligently analysing VCAT decisions and determining the grounds that VCAT stated in rejecting council positions. The next step is to return to the planning scheme and determine how it can be bolstered to ensure that the grounds available to VCAT are closed off or at the very least, made far more difficult to ignore.
Needless to say, there is nothing in the current Discussion Paper which provides even a hint as to what the ‘problems’ might be. Yet, decision after decision makes it absolutely clear – the failure of council to provide any statement as to ‘preferred neighbourhood character’ in housing diversity (ie GRZ, RGZ) and totally inadequate ‘policy’ in minimal change (NRZ) areas – where ‘waffle’ replaces fine grained statements.
Yes, we repeat! Even large areas within the Neighbourhood Residential Zones are in the same boat as residents living in GRZ or RGZ zones.
Here are two recent VCAT decisions for developments in the so called ‘protected’ areas of Neighbourhood Residential Zones. Some areas have council’s version of ‘preferred character statements’ which amount to nothing more than waffly, motherhood pronouncements, whilst other areas in the NRZ do NOT HAVE even this pretence of such a statement.
The Council’s concern also relies on a misplaced emphasis on preferred character rather than existing (or prevailing) character. It is correct that the minimal change area policy has a specific objective relating to preferred character. However, there is no formal statement of preferred character in or under the scheme for the relevant character precinct in which the land is located. The objective relating to preferred character is to ‘encourage development that is responsive to its site and context, integrates with and enhances the prevailing neighbourhood character. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/306.html
The Glen Eira Planning Scheme does not include a preferred neighbourhood character statement for this area, and the Clause 22.08 local policy broadly encourages dual occupancy developments in this location in a side-by-side layout, provided that they respect the existing neighbourhood character of the area.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2015/870.html
Thus, further question that residents should consider asking their elected representatives are:
· What gaps in the Planning Scheme has VCAT identified through its decisions? Will council address each and every one of these gaps?
· Will council introduce preferred character statements for all of Glen Eira that are detailed, specific, and work to ensure that neighbourhood character is protected? If not, why not?
April 15, 2016 at 10:48 AM
With all the gaps in the planning scheme there is probably about 5 years of very solid work that needs to be done. Council needs to hire some decent planners in the effort to make up for all the years that they did nothing.
April 15, 2016 at 11:43 AM
Dead right. Council’s planning scheme is like a sieve. Full of holes that are leaking profits galore to developers.
April 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM
So much to do to fix the rot. Agree with you objector. Major budget allocations should be made to top up the planning area and get started asap on amendments after amendments. The 15 year moratorium’s up.
April 15, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Macca – The liberal loyal Councillors backed the Guy in 2013 and screwed us all and the chances of lib government next term? Pathetic agendas coming to the surface.
April 15, 2016 at 1:40 PM
Not only the “liberal loyal councillors” amigo. Throw in a handful or two from Magee, Delahunty, Pilling, Sounness.
April 15, 2016 at 1:38 PM
Council has resisted all efforts to establish a coherent vision for the municipality. Concerning “preferred character”, the unofficial responses from Jeff Akehurst in the past have been (1) “look at Elsternwick” and (2) “more like New York”.
Council has misapplied the new residential zones. The expected type of housing for GRZ is officially “a mixture of single dwellings, dual occupancies with some villa units and in limited circumstances town houses, where appropriate”. GECC instead wants multi-unit development [not diversity], which is what RGZ was intended for: “A mixture of townhouses and apartments with underground car parking”. The zoning doesn’t match the policy.
Also it is way past time that all references to “urban villages” are expunged. It was a failure of a policy dating back to the unlamented Kennett era. Try finding a copy of the “Urban Village Project” report from August 1996 anywhere.
April 15, 2016 at 3:57 PM
My understanding of an discussion paper is that it provides information first and foremost. Then it sets out the issues. It offers an overview of the possible actions and then sets out the pros and cons of each action. None of this is part of what council has done. Reckon its better to keep the plebs ignorant.
April 17, 2016 at 3:19 PM
Council will do everything possible to retain the zones approved by Mathew Guy when he was the Planning Minister and since then the liberal gang and their friends have supported with Hym’s, Liphutz, Esakoff and Okotell with the help of Magee who was heard on the radio words to the effect of ” People have to live with the zones” insulting and undermining the residents”
Will the Councillors attend tomorrow evening’s forum on unauthised zones that were introduced without public’s blessings.
Residents come along (MODERATORS: rest of sentence deleted).
April 17, 2016 at 7:58 PM
I’m inclined to agree with you. Since the zones were introduced the constant refrain from Hyams and his ilk was that there had been consultation and that people got what they wanted. Changing the zones now is an admission of failure and all the propaganda that has come post zones is nothing more than propoganda. Since we are dealing with a council that never admits it makes mistakes, then the only solution as I see it, is to ensure that none of these councillors or their nominees get elected in October.
April 17, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Oh yeah, tomorrow is the black day for Councillors and their dumb reasoning that nothing has changed. If so, smarty panties why could you’ll not keep the original zones – minimum change area, housing diversity etc. All councillors need to be shown the door with a kick on their ar*se
and investigated for decisions made on bloody party lines and closed door meetings keeping the residents in dark.