The following example highlights what can be achieved when residents and council work in unison to deliver positive outcomes for the community. It features Banyule Council’s fight to ensure that the Ivanhoe Activity Centre Structure Plan contains MANDATORY, rather than ‘discretionary’ height limits.
Unlike Glen Eira City Council, Banyule was not prepared to sit back and argue that mostly ‘discretionary’ height limits was the way to go. They lobbied the Minister in conjunction with their residents and have recently achieved complete MANDATORY controls for the entire activity centre. Further Banyule council is also part of the ‘pilot program’ investigating mandatory heights for all activity centres. Moonee Valley is also part of this program. Why isn’t Glen Eira? Has our council even asked, much less uttered one single official word to put any pressure on government? The answer is NO!
We also present the Save Ivanhoe letter to Wynne asking for (and ultimately getting) mandatory heights.
The joint effort by both residents and council should be a salutary lesson for Glen Eira. And so should the processes undertaken by Banyule – ie open, transparent consultation and consensus!
Helen Carr and Luke McNamara
Co Convenors
Save Ivanhoe Residents Group
http://www.saveivanhoe.com/
info@saveivanhoe.com
Hon Richard Wynne
Minister for Planning
Victorian State Government
richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au
19 September 2017
Dear Minister
RE: Mandatory Controls for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre
We are following up progress on the implementation of Mandatory Controls for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre. This proposed action comes out of the Banyule Council community meeting in May when you stated that you were happy to introduce such controls given the extraordinary level of planning by the community and Council in the delivery of the Ivanhoe Structure Plan.
The Ivanhoe Structure Plan was developed through an unprecedented intensive and extensive Council planning process over three years. The community engagement was extensive. There were dozens of community sessions and workshops held and attended by traders, residents, developers, Council staff, Councillors and state politicians. Banyule Council employed the services of MGS Architects to do a street by street analysis of the activity centre zone. Council created a Community Consultative Committee (CCC) who met regularly for two years to work through the details of the plan.
The Save Ivanhoe Residents Group was a key player throughout this time, informing and harnessing the participation of many hundreds of residents and making a significant contribution to the outcome. Our contribution included participation on the CCC, dissemination of information to residents, ongoing discussion with Council and key stakeholders, site inspections, community forums and the review of the conceptual plans and documentation.
Over 1200 individual submissions were made to Council.
The ultimate plan delivered for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre was one where developers, traders, residents and Council agreed, through discussion, analysis and compromise on how to deliver future growth and development of the Activity Centre, in accordance with State Planning Policy.
The Structure Plan was reviewed by State Planning Department to confirm it contributed significantly to future density growth and also reviewed by a State Government Planning Panel. The guidelines for heights, setbacks and specific provisions in seven different precincts in the Activity Centre were endorsed through this process.
Despite the community request, these guidelines were not prescribed. Consequently many developers have blatantly ignored these guidelines, as have some VCAT decisions. More recently developers have been spurred on by the State Government’s changes to allowable heights. This has undermined the hard work and everything that our community and Council agreed was appropriate and reasonable to ensure growth and development but to avert rampant overdevelopment, destruction of neighbourhood character and future liveability.
A current example of over development is the 10-storey development application for 40 Upper Heidelberg Rd. This was refused by Banyule Council and is currently before VCAT. [VCAT Order: P1645/2017]. This proposal exceeds the guidelines height by 60% and has none of the required setbacks or the landscaping required for the site. It is situated on the most prominent ridgeline in Ivanhoe and will have significant negative impact on local residents, neighbourhood character and general amenity. It will be visible throughout Ivanhoe and from East Ivanhoe, Alphington and Eaglemont. It is at complete odds with local planning policy and process and will create a precedent for the area. Furthermore VCAT rejected a very similar development in the early 2000s. This earlier and similar sized proposal, although half the height, was thrown out as inappropriate due to excessive bulk and adverse impact on amenity.
As a consequence of continual developer disregard for the Activity Centre guidelines, there is widespread anger in the community that the Plan has been so undermined, discounted and ignored.
Save Ivanhoe Residents Group believes it is essential to protect the integrity of the Structure Plan for the development of the Ivanhoe Activity Centre. Therefore we are asking that you urgently approve mandatory controls on height and setbacks throughout the Activity Centre in accordance with the Structure Plan.
Furthermore we ask that you do so, or publicly signal your intent to do so, prior to 9th October VCAT Compulsory Conference regarding 40 Upper Heidelberg Rd. To do this will signal to developers that local planning guidelines are to be respected. It will signal to the community that your government is responsive to and respects local community and Council planning processes. This is particularly urgent to give guidance to VCAT regarding all current applications scheduled for review.
We welcome development and growth in Ivanhoe. However no developer has the right to ignore the requirements of the Structure Plan and in doing so lead to the needless destruction of liveability now and in the future.
Yours sincerely
Helen Carr & Luke McNamara
CC:
Anthony Carbines. Member for Ivanhoe. E. anthony.carbines@parliament.vic.gov.au
David Davis, Shadow Minister for Planning. E. david.davis@parliament.vic.gov.au
Samantha Dunn, Vic Greens Planning Spokesperson. E. samantha.dunn@parliament.vic.gov.au
Source: http://www.saveivanhoe.com/news/183-mandatory-heights-for-ivanhoe-letter-to-minister-for-planning
Glen Eira Debates 
December 11, 2017 at 10:45 AM
I like the bit about the committee and the street by street analysis. Sooooooo different to Glen Eira where everything is imposed on the community. It would be heaven to have a council that worked its backside off for what residents want. Glen Eira only works for developers.
December 11, 2017 at 12:24 PM
Ron Torres made the comment to the audience at last week’s East Village meeting that mandatory height controls will not be overturned at VCAT.
December 11, 2017 at 12:26 PM
A great example of Council working very closely with community. A theme highlighted in my recent open letter to the Mayor.
December 11, 2017 at 12:43 PM
Council deserves all the criticism it gets on its structure planning. The amendments for Bentleigh and Carnegie had discretionary heights despite residents wanting mandatory. Elsternwick didn’t even get a look in. Now we get the proposed new heights for these centres and they exceed what the amendments put into place. That is quite unbelievable when council spin was that Carnegie shouldn’t be more than seven storeys and within months 12 storeys become okay and 5 storeys is okay for what was three and 4 storeys in Bentleigh. This happened over a few months to make it more unbelievable. Either the original planning was so slip shod and without justification or the new plans are no better. Wynne should be embarrassed about all of this. He put his name to some agreement and now council has put egg on his face.
I’m sick of reading masses of council papers that say nothing and don’t ask the right questions. All of this could have been done so much better. That is assuming that council wanted it done better or whether they are intent on ramming something through and pretending that they have undertaken some decent consultation. I’m convinced the latter is the truth.
December 11, 2017 at 2:39 PM
I’m convinced council planner want a planning system so full of holes; their developer mates can dive and aircraft carrier through.
December 11, 2017 at 5:08 PM
Nothing surer
December 11, 2017 at 12:46 PM
In Glen Eira, Council refused to advocate for interim mandatory controls in some areas and now we have ended up with many major developments above five storeys. Council ‘strongly’ opposed these development application at Council level only to “lose” at VCAT (no surprise). Very disappointing outcome for residents, a waste of residents time in the objection process, additional rate payer costs through VCAT, 18 months of construction impact and inappropriate development are the outcomes. Perhaps there are some key learnings from the Ivanhoe approach.
December 11, 2017 at 4:21 PM
The bizarre argument Council has used against mandatory height controls is that it encourages developers to ask for the maximum. Contrast that with discretionary height controls where developers are encouraged to ask for more than the maximum.
December 11, 2017 at 4:54 PM
For years Council has published in its “VCAT Watch” segment of Council Minutes examples of VCAT setting aside Council’s decisions. I can’t recall GECC ever responding by asking how its Planning Scheme could be tighted to make it more difficult for VCAT to override. Now that council officers are recommending that Council weaken its already weak Scheme, it appears the officers are agreeing with VCAT. I do note that all the criticisms levelled at the original C25 Amendment have come true.
December 11, 2017 at 6:41 PM
VCAT watch, the comedy warm up to the meetings
December 11, 2017 at 8:05 PM
No planning scheme review has undertaken a decent analysis of VCAT decisions. Last ‘review’ simply presented categories – ie appeals in nrz, grz, etc., but with no documentation and no recommendations as to what should be changed to provide greater protection. FYI, even the euphemistically labelled ‘VCAT Watch’ is anything but a careful ‘watch’, especially since not all decisions are included. Hence there is no real public record of how council went on each and every decision. Other councils needless to say provide a running sheet and commentary on EVERY single decision that has ended up at VCAT. Their planning scheme reviews do cite decisions and point the way for changes that council could make. Nothing like this has ever existed in Glen Eira. All that residents are fed is the party line of ‘blame vcat’!
December 11, 2017 at 8:57 PM
It says a lot for the competence of our elected councillors…..not!!!!! why do people run for election and yet they have no intention of delivering what people want…..maybe its all political and they really don’t care to make a difference; they just want a grandstand to push their own views not the community….sad.
December 11, 2017 at 10:12 PM
Maybe the residents quickly become their bad mannered, winging, sometimes abusive enemies, who just never really understand the issues, on the other hand the bureaucrats with their code of conduct; of being, welcoming, polite and understanding.
I sometimes think it’s this simple, redward your friends by agreeing with them, give your enemies what they deserve, nothing.
This simple recipe saves the busy councillor heaps of work time and effort, once this understanding is in place it all apologies and money for nothing
December 12, 2017 at 11:16 PM
All of them have full time jobs. Council is a part-time job 6 hours a week. Logic: which one needs real focus is anyone’s guess.