Residents need to take careful note of what happens tomorrow night, especially what councillors say and how they vote on the so called Planning Scheme Review. If this is passed as it stands, then it is a clear message that councillors are not the community’s real representatives. They have to be gone in October!
The euphemistically entitled Planning Scheme Review, is anything but a professional and comprehensive review. It continues the tradition of pro-development, anti-community, and the ‘ let’s do nothing’ mentality that has so bedevilled this council since its inception.
Here are our reasons why this document is not worth the paper it is written on:
- Does not meet the legal requirements associated with planning scheme reviews (ie the relevant Practice Notes and the ‘continuous improvement kit’.
- Does not present full and comprehensive figures (ie very selective editing)
- A work plan that is literally ludicrous and designed to only delay and then delay some more
- The absence of any data in this review which assesses the actual performance of the planning scheme.
Questions that should be answered of councillors:
- Why is it that practically everything is lumped together under the umbrella of a ‘structure plan’? Plenty of actions can be taken without the need for a structure plan! Parking overlays can achieve the same result. Council had no trouble with Amendment C99 that introduced another student parking overlay to assist the Caulfield Village! No structure plan was needed here!
- Why is it that the issue of basement car parking is lumped under the ridiculous category of Water Sensitive Urban Design? Again, a simple amendment to increase basement car park site coverage can be done immediately via a change to the schedules – ie. Stonnington for both its Residential Growth Zones and General Residential Zones has this – Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.
- Why is it that the zones themselves do not rate a mention when this has been the constant cry from residents? Why is nearly half of Ormond zoned as GRZ1 – telling developers they can put in 3 storeys to their hearts’ content? Why aren’t the zones themselves a priority for ‘review’ – especially since Glen Eira has quadrupled its population and housing targets? This of course is not mentioned anywhere!
- Why does the section on Local Policy simply state ‘develop new policies where gaps are identified’ and the time span is given as 2 to 3 years? Any decent ‘review’ should already have identified all the gaps!
- Why is there no mention of Mixed Use Zoning, or Local Centres, where there are no height limits? Will council only look at Activity Centres and nothing else? Why isn’t this spelt out fully?
There is plenty more that could be said about this effort. We will desist and simply urge all concerned residents to write to the Minister and local politicians and demand that this Planning Scheme review be consigned to the rubbish bin and that Minister Wynne intervene directly and bring in interim measures. If council is incapable or unwilling to do its job properly, then the State Government needs to know and to act now. Glen Eira simply cannot afford another 3 to 4 years of doing nothing!
August 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM
Not to do with this post but the impact of all this development has hit home in another way with the receipt of our 2016-2017 rates statement today.
Due to the residential zones forcing property prices up, Bentleigh East’s valuations for rates purposes have gone up 35% since 2014 resulting in a 12.5% rate increase.
Meanwhile properties in some other areas have still risen significantly in value – but not as significantly – and resulted in rate decreases!!!!
August 8, 2016 at 4:02 PM
Thank god for ratecapping. Mine’s gone up over $600 from last year. Anyone out there had a reduction or is this all council bullshit?
August 8, 2016 at 10:13 PM
On the upside, the increase in rates due to increased valuation, should spare us from listening to endless discussions about why rate capping prevents them from doing what residents want.
August 8, 2016 at 4:52 PM
A three to four year wait would be disastrous. Good suggestion that pressure be put on the pollies.
August 8, 2016 at 5:00 PM
I read somewhere that ANYONE can request a planning scheme amendment. A petition calling for specific measures would need to be considered, possibly at Ministerial level
August 8, 2016 at 9:37 PM
You going to initiate it Ak?
Or are you one of the countless others hoping someone else will make the effort!!! As they say, it’s easy to criticize, it’s another thing to do something.
August 8, 2016 at 10:13 PM
Spent plenty of time making plenty of effort on various related issues. Happy to do so again. What do you feel the best way of going about it would be “not good enough”?
August 9, 2016 at 7:27 AM
How about start a petition on change.org and while gathering signatures, start drafting up the planning scheme amendment.
Use this blog site (and any others you are aware of) to advertise the petition and gather community input to the amendment.
August 9, 2016 at 8:27 AM
A petition might be good idea but not in these circumstances. Council will send this off immediately to Wynne. Would expect it to go out tomorrow morning. Petitions take time and major publicity. Cramming their inboxes with emails of dissent, complaint, and telling them what an awful job this council is doing is far more effective I think. I emailed them all last night. People can copy this bit if they want to.
In December 2015 Glen Eira council was ordered to undertake a planning scheme review. The review is set down for decision on the 9th August. I request the minister for planning not to accept this review because of its inability to provide timely recommendations,or sufficient detail. I ask the minister to use his powers to introduce interim measures which will ensure that planning in Glen Eira is in accord with community expectations and protects the currently unprotected residential amenity of Glen Eira.
August 9, 2016 at 5:14 PM
The process for requesting an Amendment is opaque. Probably need to be a property developer to get Council on-side, or be a donor to the political party forming government. C110 showed that strategic work is unnecessary, and no need to go through the tedious steps of notice and public scrutiny. Any amendment that proposes tighter constraints on development however WILL fail.
August 8, 2016 at 10:07 PM
I agree the review is a piece of crap, out of 70 odd pages only 4 deserve reading. These are the misplaced 4 pages of Appendix 2 that outline the actions (pathetic and ill defined as they are) and timelines (even more pathetic but better defined).
But Macca what’s your plan of action? I’m still formulating mine, but would be interested in knowing if your are gonna
Write to the polies yourself?
Aid others, like myself, by putting up your thoughts on this blog?
Rest on your laurels because you made a comment/suggestion (a.k.a. job well done) and leave it up to others to do the follow through
August 8, 2016 at 6:34 PM
My understanding is that amendments can be put up without the formality of a structure plan and not everything should be part of a structure plan. Heights are fair enough and urban design. Car parking rates and local street management is up to council to do right now. Like the post says there is much that can be done via the schedules that would improve things. All that is necessary is for them to really want to improve the situation. That is the awful thing that if this gets voted in then it tells me that councillors do not give a hoot. They will tick everything that is put before them.
Whatever happens I still can’t understand why McKenzie has allowed this to go out. It is a reflection on her since Smith and Torres are supposed to take orders from her. If she has any idea about planning and has listened to what residents said then she should have put a stop to this immediately.
August 8, 2016 at 9:08 PM
Wynne needs to act at once. This is council snubbing their nose at his orders cos you can bet that he wanted more than a few structure plans in four years time. This mob is like the mrc. Unbelievable and don’t give a stuff about anyone except their developer mates. They should be dismissed for incompetence and not performing their duties.
August 8, 2016 at 9:36 PM
Agreed
August 8, 2016 at 10:00 PM
I agree too. I looked up their emails and they will hear from me.
richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au
daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
steve.dimopoulos@parliament.vic.gov.au
david.southwick@parliament.vic.gov.au
nick.staikos@parliament.vic.gov.au
August 8, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Could you also please supply the relevant Legislative Council and Federal Politicians email addresses.
August 9, 2016 at 1:29 PM
Promises galore. Been down this track before with nothing to show in the end.
August 9, 2016 at 5:26 PM
Council has to submit something by the end of the month, even if it is rubbish. While it’s obvious to me that the report doesn’t address the primary criteria that a planning scheme review is supposed to, it may be enough to satisfy the Minister. Surely the number of Council decisions set aside at VCAT would be a primary concern, but apparently not. Seems strange to have a review only to recommend that the MSS be reviewed. Pisses me off that no change to RGZ boundaries is proposed to redress the malfeasance of Cr Hyams and Mathew Guy. There is nothing fair or sustainable about planning in Victoria, and the review pointedly ignores these Objectives. The Minister is just as guilty as GECC and VCAT—see GC37 for example.