It has taken council no less than 4 weeks to fulfill its promise of answering ALL questions posed by residents at the 20th August Zoom meeting on planning.
What is concerning about the responses is:
- The failure to answer some of the questions posed
- The reliance on more and more motherhood statements that are meaningless
- The unwillingness to engage directly (and honestly) with what the questions actually asked.
We’ve uploaded council’s version of the questions and their responses HERE.
Even more significant is the number of questions that remain unanswered. We list them below. We have edited out comments and only included what can be regarded as ‘questions’.
How many homes has the State govt required GE to provide over what period of time and how are we on track for that? At some point can we say ‘that’ it, we’ve built our allocation and we can stop now’?
Can you define housing and how the current repeat building of shoe boxes is meeting the needs of older Australian’s or young families
Ron’s photo with title”the right housing in the right place” is shops and apartments at corner of Glenhuntly Road corner of James St in Glen Huntly. But this development has a step at shop front doors and disabled access is only by pressing buzzer through apartment entry in side street. Does Glen Eira Planning Scheme now require universal access for all new shops and ground floor apartment ? Especially as Ron noted aging population wit likely greater accessibility needs.
How is planning going to fund adequate open space into activity centres, areas of need, increased population to ensure resident recreation, mental health and a decent Urban Forest policy as if 5.7% open space levy has not increased open space, 8.3% may well also be inadequate.
in regards to the Elsternwick Structure Plan, particularly as it relates to the Urban Renewal North Area. In Dec 2018 we were provided with a step-by-step process by the Mayor. Where are we at right now specifically in that process that was presented?
How does bulldozing one heritage home after another present has proctection
In Feb 2018, Council endorsed max. of 5 stories in all Neighbourhood Centres as recommended by the Planning Officers. To have made this recommendation Planning Officers must have undertaken statistical analysis that supported that decision. Please advise when the Amendments supporting a request for interim height controls for 5 stories was submitted to the Minister
You mention diversity but there seems to be little diversity in what’s being built that’s new… lots of tiny apartments. What about townhouses, low cost housing, well equipped house sized apartments for downsizers …??
what is the status of the Caulfield North Activity Centre planning? has it been discussed with the community because the area is a real dogs breakfast at present
how do the conditions imposed on planning permit applications get enforced and followed through by Council?
When will ESD LPP be introduced and when will Council include zero net emissions from buildings and transport by 2030 in the Planning Scheme? Is Council considering water sensitive design and biodiversity sensitive design? How will council prioiritise active transport and reduce car-dependence and car-parking provision?
how do the conditions imposed on planning permit applications get enforced and followed through by Council?
It sounds like the Planning team is under-resourced, having to put important work on hold while attending to other work – do you need more staff?
Sorry Matt but if the council isn’t listening to the community why spend money on so called “consultation”.
Caulfield South is a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, which, in the Glen Eira City Plan 2020, height limits of buildings in commercial zones are designated as 5 storeys.
As we meet this evening there are 5 developer proposals heading to VCAT: one of 9 storeys, one of 8 storeys and three buildings of 7 storeys in Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre. Caulfield South is not a Major Activity Centre. Developments of this nature will seriously impact the neighbouring properties and destroy the concept of what is presently a neighbourhood centre.
Residents should not be expected to fight these battles on their own. As there are no structure plans in place for Caulfield South, and there are currently no mandatory height limits for Caulfield South Neighbourhood Centre, residents will struggle to win at VCAT.
Will Council commit to defending its City Plan by providing external legal representation to help residents oppose these developments when each of these proposals goes before VCAT?
CONCLUSION(S)
The questions that weren’t answered are important. Some seek information on status of policies and structure planning; others seek specific statistics that council should have at its fingertips. In terms of council’s needs is it really that difficult to provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a straight forward question of ‘do you need more planning staff’?
Given the sheer number of questions that didn’t receive an ‘answer’, it is impossible to accept the possibility that missing all of these was nothing more than an ‘oversight’. So why weren’t they answered? And why does council keep promising things that it has no intention of fulfilling?
September 18, 2020 at 1:40 PM
As usual, written a PR person, check by their lawyer and then feed to the chooks. Thank you so much we value your contribution. Disappointing as usual.
September 18, 2020 at 2:34 PM
I’m so angry how this council can lie through its back teeth and think that is okay. The first question was about the original 184 amendment and what’s come out now. This is what we are supposed to believe – The original structure plans for Bentleigh had sought to reduce the amount of Residential Growth Zone land available (RGZ –4 storeys) andthe commercial strip(Centre Road)was proposed as 4-5 storeys. The Commercial 1 Zone currently has no height controls. Once Council sought authorisation from the State Government, there was feedback requestingmore higher density areas. Therefore, the addendumthat was endorsed by Council on 4 February 2020extended the existing RGZ slightly in the northern precinctin response to the State Government feedback. The commercial strip hasremained the same
For starters we have got interim mandatory heights on commercially zoned land now so their claim that this zone “currently has no height controls’ is total bunkum. It’s pretty cute of them to forget to mention that other properties have gone up too and not just the rgz in the north and that what had mandatory height before has now become discretionary for what they like to call “strategic sites.
September 18, 2020 at 3:01 PM
Yes, our planners leave convenient loopholes in their structure plans so the developers can rort away till they hearts are contented.
September 18, 2020 at 3:33 PM
I attended the session and asked several questions that were very relevant to planning in GE. These questions are also central to Council’s reason for providing this “information” session. They have yet to be answered including a follow up question at a recent Council meeting. Very poor form and just not good enough.
September 18, 2020 at 6:40 PM
Council still hasn’t provided a compelling argument for C184, and the State Government hasn’t provided a compelling argument for rewriting it on behalf of their donors.
September 21, 2020 at 1:28 PM
Once a gain Council fails to listen to residents . The questions need an answer and seeing as they are there to represent the residents they need to step up. A good reason to vote them out in this years election.