The image seen above comes from page 20 (of 424 pages!) from the current agenda. The Item concerns the controversial rezoning of the corner of McKinnon and Wheatley Roads to a Mixed Use zone with a 4 storey height limit. It is currently zoned Industrial 3 and hence not available for residential development.
We urge readers to carefully note the highlighted sections since:
- This is the first time in living memory that council has finally admitted that the Mixed Use Zone is classified as ‘residential’ according to its planning scheme! Previously all references to ‘residential areas’ have been cited as Neighbourhood Residential Zone, General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone only.
- Residents have objected on the basis that the land should be rezoned to GRZ in keeping with its proximity to surrounding residential properties. Whilst council admits that a GRZ rezoning ‘could also comply’, there is not one single sentence in the officer’s report which seeks to explain, much less justify, why this alternative zoning solution is not mentioned again or even considered. Given the real possibility that the ensuing planning application could include merely one shop or office, and 50 or so units, then we do not see that this will have any real impact on residential profits for the developer!
- The quoted planning scheme policies, also emphasise either ‘residential’ exclusively (ie grz) or, ‘residential or mixed use activity where appropriate’. Whether or not the proposed site is ‘derelict’ is of course another issue entirely.
Thus we have a situation where council has completely ignored 186 objectors (and 6 supporters) and instead of considering even the possibility of rezoning to GRZ or abandoning the amendment entirely, have recommended going to a panel. Given the location of this site surely a decent discussion of the most appropriate zoning needed to occur. Instead we get a recommendation that lacks transparency in our view, as well as justifiable validity.
PS: for an interesting comparison, we remind readers of a recent Amendment for North Road Ormond (C121) where the site was rezoned from Commercial 2 to Mixed Use Zone with its own special MUZ Schedule of NO.3. The height limit for this particular amendment was a mandatory maximum of 10.5 metres! In McKinnon Road the proposed height is not merely 10.5, but 14 metres – well and truly above even the Residential Growth Zone stipulated heights! Thus, where there’s a will, there’s definitely a way! Here’s the North Rd site –
March 17, 2017 at 6:15 PM
This will all be about the connections and religion of the applicant, at least that appears to be at the heart of Mary Delahunty’s explanation for the special treatment of this application. The use of the “where appropriate” clause should be condemned as being a far too convenient excuse for all sorts of Council ad-hoc decision-making. Council should publish its criteria for what is and is not appropriate, but it can’t if it doesn’t have any. It has no standards and no formal decision criteria. Might as well toss a coin. If Council really wants to expand massively the commercial areas of its shopping precincts it should have the courage to say so. MUZ is at least a residential zone despite what the Planning Minister thinks.
March 17, 2017 at 9:59 PM
Amazing 15 appeals to VCAT have been lodged (page 230). Six (6) against Refusals, 8 against Conditions and 1 against Approval by an objector.
Watch this space to see if VCAT agrees with the Council. Clearly the new Council and Councillors are working hard to cut back on developers pushing the boundaries. The 437 pages of documentation is clearly a record so far. However, until the Planning Scheme is dramatically changed and approved by the minister the effect will be like whistling in the wind, Residents may complain and they may even elect new councillors, only to see the same problems persist.
March 18, 2017 at 10:16 AM
Nope. Standard policy. Knock back 95% of applications then put the boot into vcat.
March 18, 2017 at 3:14 PM
I thought they had a very sound well thought out, “nothing in writing, everything under the table policy”, and only god knows what get passed around under there. Apparently it worked so well, VCAT copied it.
March 18, 2017 at 3:44 PM
Council stinks. In five years everyone will look back and wonder how in the hell they let this happen. I can’t even make a right hand turn from Mackinnon road anymore without waiting for 3 sets of light changes. The same goes for the roundabouts in the morning. Plonking another 30, 40, or 50 units right on the corner is madness. There is nothing in the shopping centre apart from mostly cafes when there used to be a supermarket, a fruiterer, a library. On top of this all the cars from Claire will be turning into Mackinnon. No planning leads to this sort of mayhem and now they want even more. They should all be sacked.
March 18, 2017 at 4:18 PM
If I remember rightly; Rocky Camera stated at a council meeting, that, no applications has ever been knocked back over traffic concerns. So you can extrapolate from his statement that, wasted time, gridlock, and safety concerns have no weight in giving the big tick to development application.
It all about unbridled development and unbridled greed.
Your local friendly council and it officers are there to facilitate and promote this attitude.
Half of India and half China’s population is in such peril, gridlocked McKinnon road looks like paradise with a new train station.
March 18, 2017 at 10:30 PM
We have all been saying that Council stinks and that they should all be sacked. Such types of statements have been repeated time and time again since 2013. What have the residents done to get this done? People just threaten and if they are not carry out the sacking, the jokers in the Council keep doing what they know best