VCAT has once more pronounced ‘judgement’ on council’s Planning Scheme and shown its inadequacies to prevent overdevelopment. One of the latest decisions comes from the same developer who gained a permit for the 8 storey proposal in Centre Road, Bentleigh. This time it is for a 3 storey, 21 apartment venture in Prince Edward Avenue, McKinnon. Below are some extracts from the decision. If Council is ‘fair dinkum’ about shoring up its defences against inappropriate development, then each and every VCAT decision must be considered and amendments drawn up to plug the countless loopholes that developers have so successfully exploited. Anything less is unacceptable.
In principle, I consider that the zone, the absence of overlays, the consideration of relevant planning policies and the locational attributes all lend support to a more intensive development on the review site. Although residents may prefer medium density developments of not more than two or three double storey townhouses, that intensity of development is inconsistent with the extent of built form expected within a neighbourhood centre and in a housing diversity area.
However I make the point that more intensive development does not necessarily mean that individual lots along Prince Edward Avenue will be capable of accommodating three storey apartment style buildings containing ten dwellings. It may be, for example, that individual lots are unable to comfortably accommodate such development and that lot consolidation will provide a means whereby such buildings can be comfortably accommodated in this area. It is certainly the case that policy at Clause 22.07-3 encourages lot consolidation to promote development opportunities.
In contrast with the residential areas which lie outside the Housing Diversity Areas (within the Minimal Change Areas), there is no neighbourhood character policy to articulate the expected outcomes here. Nor are there any built-form overlays, such as a Design and Development Overlay, to establish the parameters which would apply to new development. Beyond the policies which have been detailed above, the only guidance which can be gained from the Planning Scheme is essentially from the purpose of the GRZ1, the 10.5 metre height limit specified in the schedule to the GRZ1, and the provisions of Clause 55.
The extracts from Tribunal decisions provided earlier confirm that the new buildings within Housing Diversity Areas are not expected to respect the existing character. To do so would detract from the policy direction that these areas are to evolve over time into locations where there is a predominance of higher density housing. This view is supported by the fact that the Planning Scheme does not include a neighbourhood character policy for the Housing Diversity Areas. They are expected to change in quite a substantial way, and this involves a very obvious departure from the traditional dwelling forms and styles which presently characterise streets like Prince Edward Avenue.
Having regard to the maximum 10.5 metre building height provided for in the Schedule to the zone, submissions that development should not be greater than two-storeys cannot be substantiated, as this specified height allows for three-storey development. The inclusion of Prince Edward Avenue in GRZ1 is an indicator that, at a point in time, a conscious decision was made that three-storey development in this street would represent an acceptable outcome. The provisions of the GRZ1 as they currently stand reflect an expectation that, over time, three-storey buildings will be constructed not only in Prince Edward Avenue, but also in the nearby residential streets contained within this zone. Indeed, approvals for such buildings are in place for sites in Station Avenue and Penang Street, both of which are within the residential area of the Neighbourhood Centre.
Within the zoning and policy context where these forms of development are anticipated, it is inevitable that new buildings of this type will affect neighbouring properties. The resultant impact on the occupants of those properties will, undeniably, be significant. It will represent a significant change from what they have become accustomed to and will, of course, affect their amenity. This is particularly so for the properties at 27 & 33 Prince Edward Avenue and at 30 & 32 Station Avenue, all of which I have inspected. The residents’ opposition to the development is entirely understandable.
However, as explained in earlier Tribunal decisions, the Council has identified this neighbourhood as one which will undergo a much greater level of change than other residential locations which are situated in Minimal Change Areas and where the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) applies. In those other areas, new development is restricted by the zone provisions to a maximum of two dwellings on a lot and the height is restricted to 8.0 metres (equivalent to two storeys). That is not the Council’s vision for this neighbourhood, as articulated in the Planning Scheme. If it were, then it would have sought to apply the NRZ here. It has not. Rather, a strategic decision has been made based on the location within a Neighbourhood Activity Centre to apply the GRZ1 and to allow higher and more intensive development. This is not without its consequences for the amenity of adjoining properties
I acknowledge the residents’ opposition to the proposed overlooking on the basis that views beyond 9.0 metres into their secluded private open space areas will be possible. While this may be true, the Objective is to limit views, not to prevent them altogether, and the Standard only requires views within 9.0 metres to be screened. The Planning Scheme’s provisions do not address views beyond this distance
The residents expressed concerns regarding the capacity of local services to absorb the demand generated by developments such as this. Although these concerns may be understandable, I have no evidence before me to lead me to conclude that the capacity of local infrastructure will be exceeded as a consequence of this development.
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2016/823.html
Glen Eira Debates 
June 5, 2016 at 2:02 PM
There maybe no evidence that the capacity of local infrastructure will be exceeded as a consequence of this development or any other development/s
.
A good question is why is there no evidence (either way) or who should provide this evidence
I see a large conflict of interest here, councils want it’s slice of the development pie to bring in more revenue, and is also responsible for providing the future infrastructure needed.
So from their revenue blindsided point of view no evidence is always going to better than some.
And the resident are left out in the cold
We need a Sustainable Living Plan to sort out this chaos.
More and more development may cost us a bomb, we will be paying more and more for declining living standards.
This is the reverse of what good town planning is suppose to achieve.
Isn’t it?
June 5, 2016 at 2:50 PM
The applications I have see simply state along the lines of “there is sufficient infrastructure in place.” For some reason they don’t appear to have to ever justify this in any shape or form.
June 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM
The decision says it in black and white that council has decided that huge swathes of McKinnon and all the other neighbourhood centres should have three storey developments in the streets. It also shows up what council hasn’t bothered to implement in terms of overlays and proper protection. If there is 85 years of available land for housing then there’s no reason why so many areas should be earmarked for this kind of development. We’ve already had thousands built since the zones came in and not the 500 that the planning scheme says we need.
Iagree with the comments already made. This is diabolical planning and the objective is to bring in more rates so that more can be spent on frivolous and useless projects. No thought has been given to drainage, to open space, nor to general quality of life for residents. I also agree with the post that this review has to make some drastic changes to the planning scheme and if this isn’t done then not one single councillor deserves to be re-elected.
June 6, 2016 at 12:28 PM
It is not VCAT’s fault it is Mathew Guy’ who was the Planning minister last term and the residential zones into law and this was indeed gasseted. Hyans the 2x Mayor and the liberal councillors, were looking after their buddie in the parliament, designed the dissasterous zones to help liberal government who supported the not happy businesses who took a delegation to Mathew that their business had no activities. The residents questioned Mr Mathew Guy on a talk back radio and he blamed the Council for preparing the zones without consultation of residents; an insult to our intelligence.
The Councilors cooncerned must be sacked or Mathey Guy’s party will not win the State election as most indication shows people are angry for destroying their homes that they built by working very hard in their field
and are now loosing their biggest asset. Are residents cursing?
June 6, 2016 at 4:36 PM
This latest VCAT decision is a shocker but illustrates much that is broken with Victoria’s “performance-based” planning system. Council has admittedly failed to make good use of the available controls to specify clearly its intended planning outcomes, but even so, Member Bill Sibonis has really overreached himself to such an extent that it should embarrass his colleagues.
Townhouses are NOT inconsistent with the extent of the built form expected in a neighbourhood centre. According to DTLPI in 2014, GRZ is for “moderate growth…provided it is consistent with existing neighbourhood character”. DTPLI further states “single dwellings and some medium density” can be expected. The fact that nobody, not even state government, trusts VCAT is why NRZ has been so overused elsewhere.
There IS neighbourhood character policy distributed throughout the planning scheme, just not as clear as necessary for obtuse VCAT members. See 21.04-2 Objective 2 for example.
Sibonis’ reference to “conscious decision” is unfunny. Who made that decision? There is no record of Council making it. The former Planning Minister may have made it, and in so doing helped his party to lose the next election. Cr Magee claims Matthew Guy insisted on the excessive zoning that has led to “85 years’ supply”.
Without evidence, he doesn’t know what Council “sought” for the area. We do know what Council originally intended, because that is clearly stated in the officer report accompanying Amendment C25: “new single houses, dual occupancies and multi-unit developments”. GRZ allows for multi-unit development but by no means mandates it. The very failure to provide diversity of accommodation in multi-unit development is an argument for contraining its use.
As for having no evidence before him that the capacity of local infrastructure will be exceeded, he has revealed his bias. There is no evidence before him that the area, if similarly developed to the extent he seeks, would NOT exceed local infrastructure. Granting an excessive development to one developer and then refusing another would be unfair. He has failed to ensure equitable development potential will be available to all developers in the area. Or more likely, he has saddled us with substantial expense in the future as we retrofit infrastructure to subsidize developer profits.
Guess we’ll find out on 15 June whether Council finally and belatedly intends to improve its planning scheme.
June 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM
I’ve always found the DTPLI stuff interesting.
What is “moderate growth”, what is “medium density”. And since when has the definition of multi-unit development included apartments? I’ve never seen any of these points raised or challenged.
June 6, 2016 at 8:29 PM
The recent State of Play reports for the State Government review of the implementation of the residential zones provided a ‘definition’ of these terms – ie ‘medium density’ was 75 dwellings per hectare. ‘high density’ was anything above this number. Glen Eira in countless streets such as Mavho, Bent, Elliott has quadrupled this number per hectare.